Allowed

Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2023BAIL/47989/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the second bail application of Ramesh accused under IPC 302/201. Considering his detention since Oct 2022, hostile prosecution witnesses, and co-accused bail, the court termed the detention indefinite, ordering release on bond with sureties conditioned against tampering or witness influence.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ramesh on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234533

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47989 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvajeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 361 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18777 of 2023.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that similarly placed coaccused, namely, Shishpal has been granted bail after the rejection of first bail application of the applicant by this Court vide order dated 6.9.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36466 of 2023. It is further submitted that during trial P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 did not corroborate the version of F.I.R. and were declared as hostile witness. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 06.10.2022 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶11

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover

¶12

within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Ramesh in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶16

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 11.12.2023 SY

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Krishna Bala and Others

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Others

Akash Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adeeva and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another