Allowed

Jagarnath Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2023BAIL/56086/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by Jagarnath Ram, a Pump Operator accused of misappropriating funds under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana. Finding no convincing material to suggest tampering or flight, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions including attendance and no interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Jagarnath Ram was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Jagarnath Ram Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56086 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagarnath Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Jagarnath Ram, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.56-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia.

¶7

The prosecution case as per FIR lodged on 06.05.2006 naming 112 persons as an accused is that all the accused persons jointly and collectively involved in a conspiracy with each other from the year 2002 to 2005 and misappropriated funds with regards to the scheme of the Government in the name of Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojna and also misappropriated food grains in Vikas Khand, Rasra, District Ballia.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the applicant was pump operator at that point of time and his name has been included in the FIR without any specific allegations. There are common allegations against 112 accused persons who are named in the FIR. There is no specific role with regards to participation of the applicant in the present case. The applicant has only prepared the proposal of development work of his village and submitted the same before the block development officer and then not involved in any other work, para 22 has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that co-accused Ram Adhar Kushwaha, Santosh Kumar Gupta, Ramji Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Harendra Yadav, Lallan Pal, Shivadhar, Ram Prasad have been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 24.8.2021, 25.10.2021 .passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Nos.14642 of 2021, 8428 of 2021. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 23 of the affidavit. The

¶9

applicant is in jail since 10.06.2022.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the FIR of the present case has been lodged against 112 accused persons. The applicant was Pump Operator and he had prepared proposal for the development work of the village. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Jagarnath Ram , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) 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

¶19

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Arif

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at AllahabadDate: 2023.01.04 10:11:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagarnath Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagarnath Ram 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

Hoshiar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Surendra Nath Dubey and Others

Ratan @ Chaita Vs State of U.P.

Dev Dutta Vs State of U.P and Another

Ramji Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhav Singh Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others