Ramkeval vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20983 of 2025

Ramkeval

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pratibha Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

1.Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant .. seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.178 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Obara, District - Sonbhadra.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the applicant and another co-accused Santosh by committing forgery in the khatuni of the first informant has taken agricultural loan of Rs.4,24,000/- from Indian Bank, Branch Anpra, Sonbhadra. It is further submitted that co-accused Santosh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13860 of 2025. It is next submitted that all the evidences related to the instant offence, are in documentary nature which have already been collected by the police during the investigation. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of completion of trial in near future. It is also submitted that applicant is the man of clean antecedents and he has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 06.03.2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the

¶13

BAIL No. 20983 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SSC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶21

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

December 10, 2025 Asha

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramkeval v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkeval 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aamir @ Mohd. Shadab vs State of U.P.

Dharmpal vs State of U.P.

Mohd Kaleem vs State of U.P.

Anil vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal vs State of U.P.

Rahul Chauhan vs State of U.P.