Allowed

Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024BAIL/8179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed bail to the applicant Ranjan in a case under sections 364/506 IPC. Bail was granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to ensure appearance in court and non-interference with evidence. The Court noted that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. Observations are without prejudice to merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Ranjan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52779

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8179 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjan

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Supplementary Affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant,learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 72 of 2024, under sections 364/506 of IPC, Police Station -Dhanpatganj, District -Sultanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the ingredients of Section 364 of I.P.C. do not attract in the instant matter, as there is no allegation of ransom and further there is no mark of injury on the body of the victim. He also added that it is an admitted fact that the victim himself stated that present applicant along with other co-accused persons including the victim were travelling from NOIDA and the incident has taken place at 108 kms at Purvanchal Express Highway, when he went for urination. He submitted that the story of the prosecution is improbable, as is evident from the statement of the victim himself.

¶11

Adding his argument, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.4.2024 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

¶12

proceedings. He submits that the identically situated co-accused persons, namely Sajjad Ahmad @ Sahjad, Sajid, Santosh Kumar, Gaurav Singh, Biki Sharma and Pawan Kumar Singh, have already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6950 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Case No. 7057 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Case No. 7377 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Case No. 7362 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Case No. 7399 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 8059 of 2024.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. against the applicant and his name has also been disclosed in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim and there are other evidences, which also indicates that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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 and also considering the fact that the abovenamed co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this court; without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ranjan , 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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

¶18

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;

¶19

(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

¶20

(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.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 AKS

¶24

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

Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Deepu @ Shailendra Savita vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayodhya Prasad Rawat vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Kant Verma and 18 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Women Welfare (Mission Vatsalya Yojna ) New Delhi and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko