Ramautar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30744

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1776 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramautar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Order on Crl. Misc. Amendment Application No. Nil of 2025

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has no objection.

¶8

The amendment application is allowed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to amend the prayer of the application during course of the day.

¶10

Order on Anticipatory Bail Application

¶11

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

¶12

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 672 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun during pendency of trial.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is innocent the alleged amount in the FIR has been deposited by the co-accused in pursuance of the order of the High Court. The applicant is having no concerned. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the allegation made in the FIR, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶15

The object of Section 482 of BNSS is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

¶16

It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

¶17

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

¶18

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Ramautar is rejected .

¶19

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 RPD

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramautar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramautar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases