Ramakant Yadav Alias Mintu vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74192

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11731 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramakant Yadav Alias Mintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Ojha,Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mahesh Kumar,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Raghubir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 284 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109, 3(5), 352 BNS, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith others but from the statements of the two eye witnesses including the statement of the informant, it reflects that applicant used shovel ( bailcha ) and coaccused Anuj Yadav caused fire arm injury to the deceased.

¶10

He further submitted that however, post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained one lacerated wound but it appears he died due to fire arm injury and therefore, it appears, due to the fire arm injury caused by co-accused Anuj Yadav, deceased died.

¶11

He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case which is although case of murder but that case is of the year 2012 and in that case, applicant is on bail.

¶12

He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.8.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is video of the incident also on record and from the video and statements of the eye witnesses, it reflects that applicant was not only present alongwith other accused but he also actively participated in the incident but they could not dispute the fact that even as per the video and statements of the eye witnesses, coaccused Anuj Yadav was the person, who by causing fire arm injury to the deceased, committed his murder.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

However, applicant is named in the FIR and from the video of the incident and statements of the eye witnesses it reflects that he also caused injury to the deceased through shovel (balkati) but from these evidences, it also reflects that co-accused Anuj was the person who caused fire arm injury to deceased and post mortem report of the deceased suggests that he died due to fire arm injury.

¶16

Further, however apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case of murder but that case is of the year 2012 and in that case he is on bail.

¶17

Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

¶18

Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 5.8.2024 i.e. for last more than nine months.

¶19

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Ramakant Yadav Alias Mintu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶27

Order Date :- 7.5.2025

¶28

Ankita

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant Yadav Alias Mintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Yadav Alias Mintu 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

Ramkishan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Vinod Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Urf Nandu vs State of U.P through Its Principal Secretary (Home)

Jagdeesh vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another