Hausila Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13896

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 650 of 2025

Applicant :- Hausila Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 745 of 2024 under sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. P.S.-Kotwali Nagar District -Gonda.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is 73 years of age and he was not involved in committing offence. He further submits that the registered deed is itself enough to show that the area of the land which is mentioned is different than the area of land which is mentioned in the other sale deed. He next submits that the dispute is of civil in nature and that is being given colour of criminality by way of lodging the first information report. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 06.12.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is

¶11

languishing in jail since 06.12.2024; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Hausila Ram involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of

¶19

the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Mayank

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hausila Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hausila Ram v. 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

Naseem Ahmad (Dr. Naseem as Per Fir) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Satyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chier Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar Surana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Piyush Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another

Dheerendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.