Allowed

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024/771/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejection order, holding that the lower court failed to consider material facts regarding missing call logs and forensic evidence. The appellant was released on bail with strict conditions to attend proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order dated 21.7.2023 was set aside. The appellant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of an appropriate amount, subject to ad

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66651

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 771 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Sajeevan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Veer Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nagendra Singh,Prashant Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Satyam Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 21.7.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2516 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 162 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bachchrawan, District Raebareli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of enmity as brother of the appellant was killed in the year 2004, in which, deceased was the accused. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, appellant planned for killing the deceased and for which, he made cordial relation with the deceased and on 22.3.2024 on his advice, deceased sat on the motor cycle as a pillion rider, thereafter, at about 10:30 P.M., elder brother of the deceased made a call to the applicant on his mobile, then he informed that after half an hour Bharat Lal (deceased) will be dropped at the house but he did not come, thereafter, on 25.3.2023, body of the deceased was found. He further submits that during the course of investigation, no telephonic conversation in between Bharat Lal and appellant was found and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC., prosecution developed a case that call was made on the mobile of the deceased. He further submits that false recovery of the sword was shown, which was not sent to F.S.L. for examination and except confessional statement of

¶9

the applicant, there is no evidence against the appellant. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 28.3.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submits that after present case, applicant was also implicated in a case of Gangster Act, in which, he is already enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, counter afÏdavit, impugned order, F.I.R., inquest report, post mortem report as well as statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that call was made by the applicant on the mobile of Bharat Lal (deceased) but no call detail was collected by the Investigating OfÏcer and there is no evidence that sword which is recovered by the Investigating OfÏcer was sent to the F.S.L. for examination. As all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 21.07.2023.

¶12

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶13

Order dated 21.7.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 2516 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 162 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bachchrawan, District Raebareli, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Ram Sajeevan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) 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. 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Gaurav/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Praveen Kumar Dwivedi Vs Surendra Kumar Tiwari (Secy. Basic Education) Prayagraj

Monu Vs Indrajeet Singh, Nagar Ayukt (Municipal Commissioenr), Nagar Nigam, Lko.

Tara Devi Gupta and Others Vs Sri Shashi Prakash Goel Priin. Secy. State Estate Deptt Lko. and Others

Dr. Minaxi Basant Lohani Vs Professor Javed Musarrat, Vice Chancellor, Integral University, Lko. and Another

Vidya Bhushan Mishra vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director, Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Lko.

Ram Sajeevan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another