Allowed

Ramashanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/1057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC-LKO allowed an appeal against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act. Finding that co-accused were already on bail and the appellant had no criminal history, the court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on personal bond and sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of similar amount.

Ramashanker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30994

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1057 of 2024 Appellant :- Ramashanker Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Paritosh Shukla,Anamika Singh,Sukh Deo Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Aklavya,Dinesh Kumar,Mamta Rawat,Sarjoo Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 9 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.2229/2023, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.94 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station- Fatanpur, District- Pratapgarh, whereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further stated that co-accused persons namely Ram Vishal Shukla, Saheb Shukla and Rahul Shukla have already been released on bail vide order dated 15.03.2024 , 01.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3483 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 3631 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 760 of 2024 respectively, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is, thus, submitted that there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence, hence, appellant is entitled for bail.

¶8

He further submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 28.05.2023, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the A.G.A., and also that possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant be released on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

¶10

Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order and other relevant documents, as also the fact that the co-accused have already been released on bail, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶11

Order dated 23.11.2023 passed by theSpecial Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.2229/2023, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.94 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station- Fatanpur, District- Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant- Ramashanker be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶13

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶14

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶15

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶16

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶17

(v) The appellant 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶19

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶20

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶21

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶22

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.4.2024

¶24

Jyoti/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramashanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashanker v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 8 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baburam Vs State of U.P. through Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Ors.

Imran @ Patalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Vaishya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Arjun Singh vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit, Lucknow

Amit Thakur @ Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anoop Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another