Ram Bachan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 209, 310(4), 313, 317(2)
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 25
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 84
Judgment
Applicant :- Ram Bachan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Verma, Pinki Devi, Sarvesh Kumar, Shivani Raj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 51 of 2025, under Sections 310(4), 313, 317(2) of BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur. 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 though the police has shown some recovery but that could not be connected as per the provisions of law.
He next added that the applicant has duly explained his criminal history in para no. 18 of the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. The co-accused Rajendra Prasad has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5402 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant seeks parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 21.03.2025. The chargesheet in the case has been filed 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. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as the applicant has criminal history of 13 cases. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that article which is shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant could not be connected as the provisions of law.
Further, the applicant has duly explained his criminal history in the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. The co- accused Rajendra Prasad has already been granted bail. Chargesheet in the case has been filed and he is languishing in jail since 21.03.2025. 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. 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 on the ground of parity.
Operative part
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Ram Bachan involved in the aforementioned case 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:-
(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 in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 209, 310(4), 313, 317(2); Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25; Constitution of India — art. 21; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 84.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 23 Jul 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.