Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12416

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 271 of 2024

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kumar Singh,Ravi Shankar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Julfikar Ahmad

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Case called out in the revised list.

¶8

From perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that the notice has been served to complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2. Neither learned counsel for the complainant/ informant/ opposite party no.2 is present nor learned counsel for the applicant is present to press this application.

¶9

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2024, under sections 419,420,506 of IPC P.S.- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya.

¶10

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 08.01.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶11

"Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2/complainant is taken on record.

¶12

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

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2024, under sections 419,420,506 of IPC P.S.- Kotwali Ayodhya, DistrictAyodhya.

¶14

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 was not involved in committing the offence. He added that the applicant is the marginal witness and it is not a case of impersonation. He next added that identically situated co-accused, namely, Sujeet Yadav @ Sujeet Kumar Yadav has already been granted interim anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 255 of 2024 vide order dated

¶15

20.12.2024 passed by this Court and applicant is seeking parity of the same. Further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is cooperating in the investigation proceedings. He also submits that there is apprehension that the applicant will be arrested by the police thus, submission is that the the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶17

Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Ramesh Kumar Yadav shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶20

(ii) that 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;

¶21

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶22

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶23

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶24

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶25

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶26

List/put up this matter in the 2nd week of February, 2025.

¶27

Office is directed to print the name of Shri Julfikar Ahmad as counsel for the opposite party no. 2/complainant in the next cause list.

¶28

In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits. "

¶29

From perusal of the order dated 08.01.2025, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This

¶30

Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ramesh Kumar Yadav till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶33

(ii) that 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;

¶34

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶35

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶36

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶37

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶38

Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶39

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

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and

Sarvesh (in Adhar Card Sarvesh Kumar ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.

Indra Mohan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ati Ullah Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.