Allowed

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2024/578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail. Since no direct allegations were levelled against the appellant and he had no criminal record, the court enlarged him on bail subject to specific conditions, clarifying that this does not affect the trial court's findings on merits.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellant Ram Prasad Jaiswal released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties subject to specific conduct conditions.

Ram Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43385

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 578 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Prasad Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amjad Siddiqui,Omkar

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sitapur, whereby rejecting the Bail Application No. 121/2024 (Ram Prasad Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.) filed by the accused/appellant for his release in Case Crime No. 370 of 2022, under Sections 304, 420, 201, 379, 120B IPC, Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in brief is that an FIR was lodged alleging that the wife of the informant was taken to the private hospital/clinic and it was stated that the clinic/hospital insisted to deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently, on account of the negligence, the wife of the informant had died. The appellant, who is the owner of the premises where the hospital is being run was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, during the investigation, it transpired that the hospital was being run without proper registration.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the wife of the informant had entered the premises on which the hospital was being run and no specific assertion of any wrongdoing has been alleged against the accused-appellant. The appellant is in custody since 09.10.2022 and has no criminal antecedent. It is further argued that one of the coaccused Raj Kumar Pal had approached this Court, a direction was issued for moving a discharge application. It is also argued that other co-accused Shobha Dixit was enlarged on bail by the trial court vide order dated 03.03.2023. The appeal preferred by

¶10

the appellant i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2023. While arguing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that despite sufficient time being elapsed, there is no chance of trial being concluded in near future.

¶11

Considering the fact that no allegation was levelled against the appellant, who is the owner of the premises of the commission of the offence, the appellant, who is in custody since 09.10.2022 and has no criminal antecedent is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The appeal is allowed and is disposed of in terms of the said order.

¶12

Let the accused/appellant- Ram Prasad Jaiswal be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Case Crime No. 370 of 2022, under Sections 304, 420, 201, 379, 120B IPC, Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, Police Station Reusa, District Sitapur, on furnishing personal bonds 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 :- 18.6.2024 Raj

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

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

Mohd. Rafeek vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Shahanshah vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Akeel Shah vs Union of India Thru. Ncb Mahanagar Lko.

Anshu Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maroof vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko.

Arif @ Asif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another