Jai Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31469

Court No. - 8

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3298 of 2024 Applicant :- Jai Ram Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Counter afÏdavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶7

This bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 319 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is a Peon in Nagar Palika Parishad, Ambedkar Nagar, has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of presumption that he is in association with the Ajay Kumar Tripathi, against whom evidence was found for submitting a report on an application, which was allegedly moved by Champa Devi for mutating the her name along with Neetu Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh. However, during the course of investigation, it was found that no such application was given by Champa Devi and the marriage certificate, which was relied by the co-accused, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, was also found forged. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no evidence against the applicant, but the charge sheet has already been filed against him only on the statement of the Executive OfÏcer of Nagar Palika, who stated in his statement that the applicant was also a resident of Ambedkar Nagar and, therefore, he might be

¶9

associated with the kingpin of the crime, Pawan Kumar Pandey. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 09.11.2023. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Shri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that sufÏcient evidences are found against the applicant. However, they do not dispute the fact that the involvement of the applicant is surfaced in the statement of Executive OfÏcer of the Nagar Palika.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of F.I.R., application, counter afÏdavit and other relevant documents, including the statement of Executive OfÏcer placed by Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A., it is evident from the said statement that the ofÏcer concerned stated that there is a possibility that applicant, who is working on the post of Class IV in the Nagar Palika, Akbarpur, might be associated with kingpin of the crime. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Application stands allowed.

¶13

Let applicant -Jai Ram Yadav be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 319 of 2022, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶16

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 ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(v) 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 IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶21

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jai Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda

Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs Shri Sadanand Saroj, S.D.M., Ambedkar Nagar

C/M Sitaram Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pratapgarh Thru. Its Manager Ram Kishor Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Mukesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ajay Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Lal Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.