Ramu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69414

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11348 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav 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 initially F.I.R. dated 15.04.2024 was lodged under Section 363 I.P.C. against the applicant and one other accused namely, Mukesh, with the allegation that on 11.04.2024 at about 11:00 p.m. both the accused named in the F.I.R. had enticed away the minor daughter of the informant. When the victim was recovered her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she had specifically stated that she went with the named co-accused Mukesh and solemnized marriage with him and she had not made any allegation against the applicant. Thus, it has been argued that applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and deserves to be 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 30.06.2024, with no criminal history.

¶8

Though, the learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed that the victim has not made any allegation against the applicant in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 154 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant- Ramu , be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 291 of 2024, under Sections 363, 368 I.P.C., Police StationPuwayan, District- Shahjahanpur, 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Mustaqeem.

¶19

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

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State of U.P.

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

Ashwani Bhatnagar @ Aashu vs State of U.P.

Rizwan vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Home Secretary, Lucknow

Rizwan vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Home Secretary, Lucknow

Sami vs State of U.P.

Sunil Paswan vs State of U.P.

Dipankar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others