Allowed

Rameshwar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2023BAIL/20697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Rameshwar Singh Yadav accused in an offence under SC/ST (P.A.) Act and IPC for illegal land occupation. Court found no necessity for custodial arrest despite the applicant's criminal antecedents, noting unexplained FIR delay and prima facie weak prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence filing.

Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99807

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20697 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rameshwar Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Rajesh Mishra, the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicantRameshwar Singh Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police StationMalawan, District-Etah during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 02.06.2021, a belated FIR dated 17.06.2022 was lodged by first informant-Geetam Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station-Malawan, District-Etah. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely (1) Rameshwar Singh Yadav, (2) Jugendra Singh Yadav and (3) Subodh Kumar have been nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person also been arraigned as accused.

¶10

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the affect that named accused have illegally and forcibly occupied the land of the first informant i.e. Survey Plot No. 565/2, area 0.761 Hectare.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number.

¶12

He has then invited the attention of Court to the document occurring at page 94 of the paper book and on basis thereof, he contends that in respect of the land in dispute, proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act were held. However, compensation was denied to the first informant primarily on the ground that since father of the first informant has already executed a lease of 99 years in favour of the wife of present applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. The copy of the lease deed has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed in support of present application.

¶13

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that prima-facie the allegations made in the FIR are contrary to the documents on record which cannot disputed as the same fall in the realm of public documents.

¶14

It is then contended that there is a delay of almost 1 year in lodging the FIR. However, neither in the FIR nor in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is any explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. He, therefore, submits that once the delay in lodging the FIR remains un-explained, the prosecution of the applicant itself cannot be maintained. In support of above, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403 (paragraph 8).

¶15

He further submits that though applicant has criminal history but the same has been duly explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today. On the above premise, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The charge sheet has already been submitted, therefore, evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stand crystallized. There is nothing on record to show that the custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶16

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶17

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned

¶18

A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and accusation made coupled with the fact that father of informant has himself executed a lease of 99 years as is explicit from the document occurring as Annexure-11 to the affidavit, the denial of compensation to the first informant, on the above ground as is manifest from the document occurring at page 94 of the paper book, the criminal antecedents of the applicants having been duly explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit, the charge sheet having been submitted, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the proseuction against applicant now stand crystallized, there is no such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during course of trial, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶19

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant-Rameshwar Singh Yadav, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶23

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶24

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS

¶25

ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶26

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶27

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Vinay

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rameshwar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Singh Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irtaza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pal Vs Shiv Raj Singh

Lullu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Braj Bhushan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another