Allowed

Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024CRLA/2064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 2064 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court, hearing a bail plea filed by the appellant challenging a conviction under Sections 323, 332, 353, 394, 504, 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act, found a prima facie case for bail and allowed the application, directing the trial court to release the appellant on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties. The court imposed conditions for immedia

What did the court decide?

Appellant to be released on bail by trial court on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in like amount, subject to deposit of fine, cooperation in appeal, and no new criminal activ

Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2064 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Order on Appeal

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

List after eight weeks.

¶10

Order on First Bail Application

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

2. A prayer for bail has been made by the appellant in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 04.5.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar in S.C./S.T. No. 100064/2014 arising out of crime no. 06/2014 under Sections 323, 332, 353, 394, 504 506 IPC, 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that during trial, appellant was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. He further submits that trial court failed to appreciate the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses in the correct prospective. He further submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of the appeal in near future, hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶14

4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail and submits that conviction of the appellant is on the basis of evidence on record.

¶15

5. Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the material brought

¶16

on record, this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of criminal appeal before this Court.

¶17

6. Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.

¶18

7. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.

¶19

8. Let the appellant- Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) Fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellant at the time of his release.

¶21

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶22

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

10. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 prateek

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rannu Yadav @ Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

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

Similar cases

Mohd. Rafi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Anr.

Durgesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Arvind Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Surekha Singhal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Jai Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 12 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another