Allowed

Ram Gulam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/36287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant, an under-trial accused charged with murder and abetment. Granting bail considered jail overcrowding, lack of criminal history, and constitutional rights under Article 21 without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167332

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36287 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Gulam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR against co-accused persons, Akhilesh Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav and Chhobila Yadav, of causing fire arm injury to the deceased. Two persons have died. Death of one was caused deliberately and other was hit unintentionally.

¶7

Counsel for the applicant submits that although implication under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC has been made but the ingredients for constituting offence under Section 149, 120B and 34 IPC cannot be decided at this stage. The applicant is in jail since 13.07.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit. Two co-accused persons, namely, Pankaj Kumar Yadav and Ajay Kumar Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 48920 of 2020 and 49468 of 2020.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Ram Gulam Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 375 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station- Patherowa, District- Kushi Nagar, 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 / Rohit

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Gulam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gulam 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

Kamaluddin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh @ Rajeshwar @ Kanha Vs State of U.P.

Ramkaran Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heera Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P.