Ramsamujh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence in question is triable by the Magistrate. It is further submitted that from a single recovery, as many as six cases have been registered against the applicant. The recovery memo, as prepared, appears to be highly doubtful, as it shows recovery made twice from each pocket of the driver. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is in custody since 10.08.2025, and the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶14

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶15

BAIL No. 10162 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has been in custody since 10.08.2025; the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter; the manner in which the recovery memo has been prepared, coupled with the absence of any public witness to the recovery, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Ramsamujh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) 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.

¶23

(iv) 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 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.

¶24

(v) 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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶25

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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

¶26

BAIL No. 10162 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

November 3, 2025

¶31

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramsamujh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsamujh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Dharmendra Madhesiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Dhanpat Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt of Home and 3 Others

Salim @ Lala (as Per Rejection Order ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Niraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ruksar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.