Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025BAIL/11850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gangsters Act bail application; applicant had been granted bail in both cases in his gang chart with one further case explained, and was in jail since April 2022. The court found it a fit case for release and allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramzan released on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2022 on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including undertaking under Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act.

Ramjaan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11850 of 2025

Ramjaan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Kumar Maurya, Vikas Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶12

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the applicant. In both the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as Annexure No.3 jointly.Apart from these cases, there is a criminal history of one more case which has been explained in para 13 of the bail application. There is no other case pending against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 8.4.2022.

¶13

It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶14

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

¶15

3. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also

¶17

BAIL No. 11850 of 2025

¶18

¶19

considering the nature of allegations, the applicant has been granted bail in the case(s) shown in the gang chart, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the long period for which he is in jail 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.

¶20

5. Let the applicant Ramzan, involved in Case Crime No. 244 of 2022 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Purwa, district Unnao, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶26

(vi) 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 I.P.C. (now section 269 BNSS)

¶27

(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in

¶28

BAIL No. 11850 of 2025

¶29

¶30

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 I.P.C. (now section 209 BNS)

¶31

6. The bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

December 4, 2025

¶34

kkb/

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Udaibhan Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raunak Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Naresh Yadav @ Lalu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Ministry Lko.

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