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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10835

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5806 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra,Anil Kumar Yadav,Avinash Singh Vishen,Shishr Raj,Vedant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Maurya,Naved Ali,Vikas Vikram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Rejoinder affidavits filed by the learned counsel for the applicant to the counter affidavits of the State as well as by the complainant, are taken on record.

¶7

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 366 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 216, 120-B IPC, Police Station Harchandpur, District Raebareli with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. It is also submitted that while rejecting the 1st bail application vide order dated 25.08.2023, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year, but the trial has not been concluded till date. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that as all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is going on at the stage of defence evidences, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is next submitted that the applicant was earlier implicated in two other cases. He was also implicated in two cases during the course of his confinement. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who is in jail since 09.11.2019. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant

¶9

will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submit that as all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the trial will be concluded very soon and the trial is being delayed only on behalf of the accused persons as they are not producing the defence witnesses. It is, thus, submitted that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., counter affidavits, rejoinder affidavits as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 09.11.2019 and while rejecting the 1st bail application vide order dated 25.08.2023, this Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year, but till today, the trial has not been concluded. It is also undisputed that all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, thus, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence.

¶12

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Application stands allowed.

¶14

Let applicant -Ramesh Yadav be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 366 of 2019, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 office or

¶17

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 229A 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 (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 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.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 VKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Anam Baby Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Neha Maurya Thru. Her Brother Pradeep Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Nikhil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chhotakay @ Rakesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another