Allowed

Ramayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2024/448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court allowed bail for a 70-year-old applicant accused in a multimillion-rupee seed scam case. Relying on the applicant's age, lack of specific evidence, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, the court ordered release on bond with two sureties unless arrested. Strict conditi

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Ramayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66329

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 448 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramayan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.112 of 2012 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(D)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mahanagar, Bazaar District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years and he is a store keeper and alleged incident is prior to 7-8 years from the date of lodging of F.I.R. dated 26.04.2012. As per the F.I.R., it was a scam of Rs.42,50,000/-, in which, khatauni of the farmers and other relevant documents were placed by some fictitious persons for getting seeds and other benefits. He further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and he is cooperating in the investigation and other co-accused persons, namely, Tariq Zamin has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2022 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 No.902 of 2022, therefore, applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that after detailed investigation, sufficient evidence has been found against the applicant, therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to him.

¶10

Considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant is aged about 70 years and in the said case, similarly situated co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶11

In view of the above, the application is allowed.

¶12

In case, the applicant, namely, Ramayan is taken into custody, he shall be released by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of each of like amount with the following condition:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure him 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.

¶18

(vi) 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 be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 24.9.2024/V. Sinha

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramayan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Naseeb Ahmad Vs Khushboo Yadav, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jarwal, Bahraich

Deepak Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Sharif Vs Sri Pushpendra Singh Gill, Civil Judge J.D., Ii, Bahraich

Anupama Singh vs Vinay Kumar Dwivedi, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Lko.

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

Ramayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.