Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67641

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9819 of 2024

Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Anamika Singh,Anand Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 411, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that submission of learned A.G.A. that applicant has a criminal history of ten cases is not correct. Applicant has explained the criminal history of four cases and that apart from four cases, there is no other criminal history of the applicant and supplementary affidavit filed to this effect is taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Dayashanker Bharti has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6903 of 2024. The role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Dayashanker Bharti. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of aforesaid coaccused. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2024 as also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Dayashanker Bharti (supra), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity .

¶14

Let the applicant Ramesh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶19

(v) 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

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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. 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.9.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

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

Ramesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Santosh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Qazi Saif Rehman Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Kunwar Chand Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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