Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024BAIL/7601/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ramesh Kumar, who was in judicial custody underIPC Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 308, & 452. The Court found general allegations of assault, no specific role attributed to the applicant, lack of weapon recovery, and cobail to co-accusers as grounds for release.

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specific conditions regarding court attendance, case hearing presence, and no travel abroad.

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47787

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7601 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Ojha,Ajay Kumar Ojha

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

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

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 5.6.2024 in Case Crime No.73 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304, 308, & 452 I.P.C., Police StationMaharajganj, District- Raebareli.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. General allegation of assault through a sharp edged weapon has been levelled against all the accused persons, but the injuries sustained by the victim are not being corroborated from the injury report. As per the injury report, all the injuries are simple in nature. The victim died after sometime while undergoing treatment. In the F.I.R., the allegation has been levelled that the victim has sustained serious injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon, but while recording her statement, the complainant/ informant has levelled allegations that the victim has been beaten up by the present applicant and other co-accused persons through the stick and bricks. There is no recovery of the weapon from the possession of the present applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. The present applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that challenging the impugned FIR, the applicant had approached this Court by filing a writ bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2024 which was disposed of on 11.3.2024 giving liberty to the applicant to file anticipatory bail application. Thereafter, the applicant filed anticipatory bail application

¶11

bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1145 of 2024, wherein he has been granted interim protection for three days vide order dated 24.5.2024. However, vide order dated 30.5.2024, the said anticipatory bail application was rejected giving liberty to the applicant to take appropriate remedy before the appropriate court of law. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 5.6.2024 and was sent to judicial custody and since then, he is in jail.

¶12

Further submission is that co-accused persons viz., Ram Jiyai, Sumit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, having similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.5.2024, 24.05.2024 and 12.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4968 of 2024, 5549 of 2024 and 5270 of 2024 respectively, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. The applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶13

Learned AGA has, however, opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that general allegations of assault have been levelled against all the accused persons and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; there is no recovery of the weapon on the pointing out of the present applicant; the injuries, which are said to have sustained by the victim, are not being corroborated from the injury report; the victim died after sometime while undergoing treatment; the applicant is having no previous criminal history of any kind whatsoever; co-accused Ram Jiyai, Sumit Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, having similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Ramesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

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

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Shravan

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Smt. Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others

Nrapendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another