Allowed

Ram Sukh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024BAIL/1509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Sections 147, 148, 302, IPC, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail. The court noted the applicant has been in custody since 2021, has no antecedents, and the trial is stalled due to the witness's absence. The dispute involved Gram Sabha land.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Ram Sukh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13177

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1509 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Sukh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.293 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 308, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Tarun, District Ayodhya.

¶9

3 . This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5973 of 2022, wherein, the observations were made for conclusion and recording of the evidence of fact witnesses within six months.

¶10

4 . In the light of the aforesaid, the Counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the ordersheet of the trial court.

¶11

5 . On perusal of the order-sheet, it transpires that the statement of PW 1 was to be recorded on 20.05.2023, thereafter on 14.07.2023, the date was fixed for cross-examination of PW 1. Thereafter on 27.07.2023, the witness was not present and thereafter once again on 01.09.2023, the witness was not present and once again on 06.01.2024, the witness was not present. The order-sheet on record reveals that PW 1 is not forthcoming for cross-examination.

¶12

6 . In the light of the abovesaid, the submission of the Counsel for the applicant is that although, specific role of causing the injuries was assigned to the applicant, however, in the other statement of the witnesses, general role was assigned to all the accused persons. The applicant is in custody since 13.12.2021 and has no criminal antecedents.

¶13

7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶14

8. Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 13.12.2021 and has no criminal antecedents; the FIR itself indicates that the dispute occurred on account of a dispute pertaining to a Gram Sabha land and the constructions being raised thereon and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

9. Let the applicant Ram Sukh Yadav be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 akverma

¶20

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

Ram Sukh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sukh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Piyush Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Irshad @ Chikna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home), U.P. Lucknow

Gaurav Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Ram Sukh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Srikeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.