Allowed

Ramu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2023BAIL/55890/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ramu and Santosh Kumar accused of murder and related offenses. The court considered jail overcrowding, the co-accused's bail status, and Apex Court precedents to grant bail on bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Ramu and Santosh Kumar released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each subject to specific conditions.

Ramu and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55890 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Jain,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ramu and Santosh Kumar , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No.529 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392, 411 & 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Handia, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the incident in question. Learned counsel for the applicants next submit that no weapon has been assigned to commit the murder and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicants. It is further argued that from the perusal of two injuries shown in the post mortem report, it is clear that both the injuries are not sufficient to cause death of any person hence it cannot be said that the deceased lost his life due to injuries as shown in the post mortem report. It is further submitted tat coaccused namely, Shyamu has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.54618 of 2022. It is next submitted that applicants have no criminal history and they are languishing in jail since 21.08.2022 and in case, they are enlarged on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but could not dispute the fact co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of

¶10

Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and coupled with the fact that co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶11

The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicants- Ramu and Santosh Kumar be released on bail on their 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.

¶13

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶18

The applicants 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.

¶19

If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Sachin/-

¶22

Digitally signed by SACHIN TIWARI Date: 2023.01.06 11:57:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu and Another 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

Rajan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaj Vs State of U.P.

Anupa Devi Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrama Vs State of U.P.