Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48246

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2604 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Case called out. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant to press the application nor any request for pass over or adjournment has been received.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application was filed on 21.11.2024. Therefore, the court proceeds to pass appropriate orders after examining the records of application.

¶9

The applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this court on 26.11.2024, which is reproduced below:

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019, under sections 419,420,467,468 & 471 of the IPC, Police StationMankipur, District-Pratapgarh.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the applicant is the husband of Village Pradhan and the

¶13

main allegation is against the Village Pradhan so far as the cheat and fraud is alleged to have been committed with the informant. She added that no criminal liability can be fastened upon the husband of the Village Pradhan and the informant while targeting the applicant, has also named him so as to involve him committing cheat and fraud. She also added that there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him in the matter and only on the basis of suspicion and being the husband of Village Pradhan, the applicant has been named. She next added that the chargesheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest him and he is ready to cooperate in the trial proceedings and therefore, submission is that the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is not the Village Pradhan, but, he is husband of the Village Pradhan and the first information report has been lodged after one year and he has been named, though he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and he will always cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶17

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicantRamesh Kumar Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(ii) that 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;

¶20

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶21

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶22

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶23

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶24

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶25

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025.

¶26

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit."

¶27

The State has filed a counter affidavit on 04.07.2024 annexing therewith copy of material collected during investigation and a copy of charge sheet dated 14.07.2020. There is no allegation of any misuse of liberty of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant.

¶28

Therefore, this court finds no good ground to take a view different from the one taken by the coordinate Bench while passing the interim order dated 26.11.2024.

¶29

In view of above, the interim order dated 26.11.2024 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 26.11.2024.

¶30

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶31

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Ram.

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suraj Soni @ Suraj Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Yadav Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Bureau New Delhi and Another

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Usha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sanjivani Rastogi Thru. Her Father Krishna Gopal Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anwaar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.