Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024BAIL/11108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal bail application filed by Ram Khilawan accused under the Arms Act. Court found prima facie evidence lacking despite recovery and noted applicant's clean trial record. Bail granted with strict conditions regarding presence and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Defendant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions to appear in court and not interfere with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81860

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11108 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Khilawan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Madhulika Yadav,Anubhav Yadav,Devendra Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Anubhav Yadav and Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 150 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been planted by the police. He further submits that as per the prosecution story, the alleged factory of countrymade pistol was recovered by the police, though there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery and the recovery is done from an open place. He submits that in fact, the police is inimical to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant has been planted in the present matter. He also submits that the police has failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence, though the chargesheet has been filed and, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses. Adding his argument, he submits that the applicant has 9 cases criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that a factory of countrymade pistol is recovered by the police which was run by the applicant and he has 9 cases criminal history and, as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that being inimical with the applicant, the police has planted the applicant in the matter; there is no cogent piece of evidence to connect the present

¶12

applicant in the crime; applicant has 9 cases criminal history which has been explained; the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidence or threaten the prosecution witnesses and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Ram Khilawan involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶20

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khilawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Premkala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pirn. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suraj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Satish Chandra @ Chhotey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Khilawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.