Disposed

Ram Kuber Tewari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/2089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. extending bail to the applicant Ram Kuber Tewari until the trial concludes, based on the interim order passed previously and his lack of criminal antecedents, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until disposal of the trial subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and obtaining permission to leave India.

Ram Kuber Tewari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73056

¶2

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2089 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Kuber Tewari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused/applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.255 of 2024 under Sections 307, 504, 506, 452, 336, 427, 34 I.P.C. P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur.

¶6

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 10.9.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 255/2024, under Sections 307/504/506/452/336/427/34 I.P.C., P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur.

¶9

In the FIR, it is alleged that, while exhorting, the named accused persons along with 7-8 unnamed having armed with country made pistol, came inside the house of the informant and fired upon him and his father, however, both of them ducked and therefore they could save their lives. It is further alleged that while going outside the house, they hurled abuses to the family members and broke motorcycle of the informant which was standing outside the house of the informant. They also thrown stones upon the house of the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The injuries sustained by the informant is quite vague. The applicant is 71 years old and has no criminal antecedents. It has been further submitted that initially an FIR was lodged by Neha Tiwari daughter in-law of the applicant which was registered as case crime No. 378/2023, under Sections 323/504/506/427 IPC, P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur against the informant and other co-accused persons. In retaliation thereto, the present FIR has

¶11

been lodged. Apart from this, there is a civil dispute going on regarding the possession over the recorded land in favour of the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court towards the report of the revenue authorities as well as application given by the applicant to the SDM.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has no criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Learned Addl. Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application submitting that the applicant has a criminal history of one case which has not been explained by him, however, they does not dispute the fact that it is a case of no injury.

¶15

List on 25.09.2024.

¶16

On due consideration to the earlier FIR lodged by the daughter-inlaw of the applicant against the complainant as well as considering the age of the applicant and also the fact that a civil suit is pending between the parties; the applicant is not a previous convict and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶19

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶20

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant shall file counter affidavit by the next date of listing."

¶21

From the perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State, there seems to be no adversarial fact and the detailed discussions on merit is done in the order dated 10.9.2024.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby disposed of while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ram Kuber Tewari till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶24

(ii) that 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶25

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶26

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶27

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶29

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Ram Murti

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Kuber Tewari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kuber Tewari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Balram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Brijbushan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Karrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Tej Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gautam Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.