Allahabad High Court
Ramratan vs State Of U.P. on 12 November, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:177538
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19810 of 2024
Applicant :- Ramratan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pragati,Shaili Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard Ms. Shaili Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2023 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 40496 of 2023.
The relevant part of the order dated 04.10.2023 is extracted below:-
"3. Applicant is the brother-in-law of the victim who as per the prosecution caused injury to the victim regarding which prompt FIR has been lodged against the applicant accused and others. From perusal of the record it transpires that there are several injuries like fractures on the vital part of the body of the injured which has been caused by dangerous weapon. From perusal of the records, it has also been transpires that there was dispute between wife and the husband and his family member for dowry.
4. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.
5. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage."
Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing second bail application submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.04.2023 and till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined. Certified copy of the order sheet is on record. It has been further submitted that statement of the informant regarding presence of the Vikas and Suneel has been falsified by the injured witnesses which makes the prosecution case doubtful. It has been further submitted that ingredients to attract section 307 IPC are missing. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Perused the record.
Perusal of the record shows that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, not a single prosecution witness has been examined till date. Specific pleading in this regard has been made in paragraph 45 of the bail application and learned AGA in para 17 of the counter affidavit has not given any reply to the averments made in paragraph 45 of the bail application.
On due consideration to the period of incarceration gone into by the applicant without having any criminal antecedents, so also the fact that till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined which has been admitted by the State in its counter affidavit and also in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of "Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693", I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ramratan, involved in Case Crime No. 102/2023, Sections 498A/323/307/ IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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. 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.
(v) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024
RC
