Allowed

Ramakant Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2023BAIL/52529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to the accused-applicant in a case involving election-related public mischief and attempted murder. The court held that a history of offences does not automatically preclude bail if the nature of the offence and circumstances require it, noting the applicant was previously on bail in the same case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramakant Yadav released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and no abuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52529 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramakant Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Somya Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent-State and perused the record.

¶6

The accused-applicant has filed present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Case No. 211 of 2022, Case Crime No. 36 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 338, 435, 504, 188, 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amandment Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, during trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy, the candidate for Azamgarh Loksabha Constituency of B.S.P. (Bahujan Samaj Party) had come in front of the police post in 6- 7 four wheeler vehicles alongwith 30-40 supporters. Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and his friend suddenly got agitated and started abusing the present accused-applicant and his brother in the filthy languages. He threatened the accused-applicant and his brother and said that he would remain alive or the accusedapplicant and his brother would be alive. After the exhortation, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and his supporters started firing, the atmosphere of Ambari Bazar got surged. On this, the accusedapplicant, who was the candidate of same Loksabha Constituency from Samajwadi Party alongwith his brother and

¶8

40-50 supporters came there and they also started abusing Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and his supporters. Both the parties started firing at each other. They used brick stones etc. on each other and tried to set on fire the vehicles of each other. The atmosphere got surged and the people were terrified. The shop keepers closed their shops and ran away, because of this the law and order got fully disturbed. The said persons namely, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy, the present accused-applicant, his brother and his supporters were arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. The police after investigating the offence, filed the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 188, 504, 338, 336 and 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶9

The accused-applicant was enlarged on bail in the year 1999, however, it appears that on some date the accused-applicant could not appear and because of non-appearance, bail bonds were cancalled and non-bailable warrants were issued. As soon as the accused-applicant came to know about non-bailable warrant, he surrendered and he has been in jail since 25th July, 2022. Some of the accused in cross case and in the present case have been granted anticipatory/regular bail by this Court.

¶10

Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case is of the year 1998 and the accused-applicant was cooperating during trial but on some date he could not appear and therefore the bail bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued. He further submits that accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail keeping his long incarceration in jail for more than six months, after the bail bonds got cancelled.

¶11

Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and submitted that

¶12

accused-applicant has long criminal history of heinous offence and while this Court considering the bail application of such accused should keep in mind the long criminal history of the accused-applicant. He therefore submits that since the accusedapplicant is involved in several other cases/offences, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of accused-applicant and State. The dispute/scuffle took place during election in the year 1998. The trial is yet to get concluded. Merely if the accused-applicant has criminal history, the bail cannot be denied if the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case so required. Considering the fact that it was a case of 1998 and the accused-applicant was already enlarged on regular bail by trial Court itself, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶14

Let applicant Ramakant Yadav be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 19.1.2023 Shafique

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up Vs Mukhtar Ansari S/o Subhan Ullah Ansari

Anil Kumar Jain Vs C.B.I. and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rambeer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Solanki Vs State of U.P.

Jinendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another