Allowed

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2023BAIL/20067/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Ramautar accused under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court noted the co-accused had already been granted bail and found no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, releasing the applicant on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ramautar on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in amounts satisfactory to the court concerned.

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176891

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20067 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramautar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 1999 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters & Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Nasirpur, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court on 02.08.2001. Though, the applicant participated in the trial till 2006, the trial could not conclude. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the District Firozabad and as such the applicant could not appear before the trial court on the dates fixed. On 03.04.2023, the applicant surrendered before the trial court and since then he is in jail. It is further contended that the co-accused, Sriram has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19272 of 2023 vide order dated 09.08.2023. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that on similar allegations and on same facts the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court. Further the applicant has remained confined for more than five months and, in any case when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Ramautar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶12

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶13

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.9.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Hisamuddin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Balram Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Raghuveer Vs State of U.P.