Allowed

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/10647/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an accused in a case of extortion and group assault on the informant's father with Farsa, axe and lathi-danda, causing mostly simple injuries. Counsel cited parity with two co-accused already released and absence of specific allegations. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramautar enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 716 of 2024 on personal bond with two local sureties and conditions.

Ramautar vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66980

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10647 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ramautar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant along with other three accused persons and two other unknown persons with the allegation that two accused persons namely Manoj Yadav and Sanoj Yadav came to the clinic of the informant and demanded five thousand rupees as extortion. The informant called the police thereafter informant returned. On the next day all the accused persons entered into the clinic and started assaulting father of the informant with Farsa, axe and Lathi-Danda, on account of which he sustained several injuries. Learned counsel further submits that injured sustained seven injuries, which were simple in nature except one injury. Learned counsel further submits that general allegation has been made against all the accused persons and no specific allegation has been made against the applicant. Two co-accused, Sanoj and Manoj have already been enlarged on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2025.

¶8

Though, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he has submitted that applicant has a criminal history of one case.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant- Ramautar , be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 716 of 2024, under Sections 333, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(3), 117(2), 118(1) of B.N.S., Police StationKasganj, District- Kasganj, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶15

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Mustaqeem.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shabbo Kinnar @ Sabir vs State of U.P.

Rajan Gurjar vs State of U.P.

Sangam vs State of U.P.

Chandra Bhushan Alias Chandrapal Alias Chandu Yadav vs State of U.P.

Munna vs State of U.P.

Amit Yadav Alias Gulshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others