Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024ABAIL/2437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a 2000 FIR under IPC sections including 307 and Criminal Law Amendment Act section 7. Applicant claimed false implication, delayed FIR, no injuries or weapon recovery, and parity with co-accused already granted interim anticipatory bail. Court found it a fit case for interim anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on interim anticipatory bail on personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to listed conditions; notice issued.

Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2437 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2000, under sections 147,148, 149, 307, 336, 384, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police StationAuras, District-Unnao.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He next added that the first information report has been lodged after delay of 3 days of the incident and the allegations are made that the several persons gathered and started brick batting, but, nobody had received injuries/contusions during the alleged occurrence. He added that the police has never recovered any weapon. He submits that due to anonymity, the present applicant is named in the first information report, though he was not involved in committing any offence. He also submits that identically situated co-accused namely, Yagya Prakash Tripathi @ Vinod Kumar and 3 Others, have already been granted interim anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 30-09-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2218 of 2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same. He submits that there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained. He also submits that since there is an apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicant and therefore, he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the

¶9

State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶11

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Ram Khelavan @ Ram Khelawan Kotedar, shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶20

Steps be taken within a week.

¶21

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶22

List/put up this matter on 12.11.2024, as fresh.

¶23

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 AKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar 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

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Phool Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 7 Others

Mohammad Firoj Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ubaid Ulla @ Mohd. Ubaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.