SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH 
Shree Prakash Singh, J.
Ram Naresh @ Ram Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2543 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Sachin Kumar Mishra, Toshendra Kumar

Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence against the applicant, emphasizing the need for cooperation in the investigation.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail application filed in case crime No. 878 of 2022 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC - Applicant seeks bail on grounds of false implication and lack of evidence against him - Court grants interim anticipatory bail considering the applicant's age and lack of adversarial evidence from the State - Conditions imposed for bail include cooperation with investigation and non-tampering with evidence. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasizes that the applicant's cooperation in the investigation is crucial and lays down specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, aged 74, was accused of writing a will deed related to a case from 2014, claiming false implication with no substantial evidence against him. The applicant's counsel argued for bail citing age and lack of involvement. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail due to the absence of compelling evidence against him and the need for his cooperation in the investigation. (Paras 6, 7)

Issues: The primary issues included the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences and the evidence presented by the State against him. (Paras 4, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant was granted bail based on the absence of adversarial facts and the necessity for his participation in the investigation, emphasizing the conditions to ensure compliance. (Paras 6, 7)

Result: Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, the notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served upon the opposite party no. 2, but no one has put in appearance.

2. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is proceeding in this matter.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case Crime No. 878 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda.

5. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 14.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 878 of 2022, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Gonda.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the role attributed to the present applicant is of writing a will deed, though, he was not involved in committing any offence. He next added that infact, an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was also moved for the same incident,wherein, the Magistrate has treated that as a complaint case.

Adding his arguments, he submits that the rejection order is evident that will deed writer is some other person, namely Ajay Kumar Tewari and not the present applicant and the matter pertains to the year 2014 and the present applicant is 74 years of age and there is no ample evidence against him that he was involved in committing any offence. He next submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not abscond from the investigation proceedings and will always cooperate in the same and the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 24 to 26 of the anticipatory bail application. Further submitted that there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest the present applicant and as such, submission is that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and he is a will deed writer and he is involved in committing offence. He also added that the investigation proceedings are going on and there is a possibility that the present applicant will flee away from the investigation proceedings and would not cooperate in the same and thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Ram Naresh @Ram Prakash, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

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

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top