Allowed

Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024/847/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Ram Bahadur under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 376, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held the allegations improbable and found no flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond with two sureties, conditioning cooperation with police and attendance at trial.

Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32189

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 847 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Yadav,Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.49 of 2024, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Sangrampur, District Amethi during trial.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

It is further pointed out that the applicant is a married person having two children. It is further submitted that the allegations as made in the FIR are quite improbable for the reason that it is alleged that the applicant has been in physical relationship with the complainant since the year 2020 and he had promised to marry the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant lives in the neighbourhood of the applicant and she from the very beginning was aware of the fact that the applicant was married person with two children.

¶12

It is further submitted that relationship was with the consent as the complainant is also 24 years of age. Once the relationship has gone sour, she had lodged the FIR after almost four years. The applicant had earlier prefer a petition before the Division Bench of this Court bearing Criminal Misc Writ Petition no.2020 of 2024 wherein the Division Bench did not deem appropriate to interfere by means of the order dated 22.03.2024 leaving it open for the applicant to take recourse to appropriate proceedings.

¶13

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the applicant has filed petition and has root in the society and would not be at fleet risk or he has the capability to influence any witness or tamper the evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation.

¶14

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application, however, could not indicate any specific reason as to whether the applicant is at risk and that he has not cooperated in the investigation including the fact that the applicant is residing where the complainant was also residing in the neighbourhood and that he has roots in the society.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶16

In the event of arrest of Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(b) 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;

¶19

¶20

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

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

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the

¶23

applicant.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.4.2024

¶26

Harshita

¶27

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

Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur @ Nanhey v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dheeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Nishant Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko