Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:60

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11884 of 2024

Applicant :- Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh,Sheelu Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2021 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Dostpur, DistrictSultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and his first bail application was rejected by this Court on 04.07.2024 with the direction to learned trial Court to conclude the trial without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. He further submits that the applicant, who does not have any criminal antecedent, is in jail since 15.02.2021. He also submits that only four witnesses, out of twenty one witnesses, have been examined till today.

¶10

Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in Crl. Appeal No. 11 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7947/2015] and Crl. Appeal No. 12 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7949/2015] , dated 03.01.2017 , learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in question in near future, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that main role of firing is assigned to the applicant. However, they do not dispute the fact that the applicant is in jail

¶12

since 15.02.2021, but only four witnesses, out of twenty one witnesses, have been examined till today.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 15.02.2021, but only four witnesses, out of twenty one witnesses, have been examined till today. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Thus, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant - Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶20

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section

¶22

313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in question, if possible within a period of one year, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Arpan

¶26

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

Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Kant Chaturvedi @ Ranjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharma Devi Mahavidyalaya, Jaunpur Thru. Manager Vikash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Dharma Devi Mahavidyalaya, Jaunpur Thru. Manager Vikash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Aryakul Institute of Pharmacy Sitapur Thru. Director Sashakt Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Nabab vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ramesh Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pawan Kumar Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko and 4 Others