The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former MP Ramakant Yadav in a case of rioting registered in 1998.

A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Yadav.

The accused-applicant filed the application under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 338, 435, 504, 188, 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, during trial.

As per the prosecution case, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy, the candidate for Azamgarh Lok Sabha constituency of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) had come in front of the police post in six-seven vehicles along with 30-40 supporters.

Dumpy and his friend suddenly got agitated and started abusing Yadav and his brother in filthy language. He threatened the accused-applicant and his brother and said that either he would remain alive or the accused applicant and his brother would be alive.

After the exhortation, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and his supporters started firing, the atmosphere of Ambari Bazar surged. On this occasion, the accused applicant, who was the Samajwadi Party candidate for the same Lok Sabha constituency, along with his brother and 40-50 supporters came there and they also started abusing Akbar Ahmad Dumpy and his supporters. Both parties started firing at each other, and pelted bricks, stones at each other and tried to set fire to each other. The atmosphere surged and the people were terrified. Shopkeepers closed their shops and fled, because of this the law and order got fully disturbed.

The said persons namely, Akbar Ahmad Dumpy, the accused-applicant, his brother and his supporters were arrested under Section 151 CrPC. The police, after investigating the offence, filed the charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 188, 504, 338, 336 and 34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.

The Court noted that the accused-applicant was enlarged on bail in 1999, however, it appears that on some date the accused-applicant could not appear and because of non-appearance, bail bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued. As soon as the accused-applicant came to know about the non-bailable warrant, he surrendered and he has been in jail since July 25, 2022. Some of the accused in cross case and in the case have been granted anticipatory /regular bail by the Court.

Senior Advocate Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, assisted by Somya Chaturvedi, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the case is of 1998 and the accused-applicant was cooperating during trial but on some date, he could not appear and the bail bonds were cancelled and NBW issued.

He submitted that the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail keeping his long incarceration in jail for more than six months after bail bonds got cancelled.

Additional Government Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav opposed the bail application and submitted that accused-applicant has a long criminal history of heinous offence and while this Court considering the bail application of such accused should keep in mind the long criminal history of the accused-applicant.

He therefore submitted that since the accused applicant is involved in several other cases/offences, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

“I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-applicant and State. The dispute/scuffle took place during the election in 1998. The trial is yet to be concluded. Merely if the accused-applicant has criminal history, the bail cannot be denied if the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case are so required. Considering the fact that it was a case of 1998 and the accused-applicant was already enlarged on regular bail by trial Court itself, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail,” the Court observed.

The Court ordered,

Let applicant Ramakant Yadav be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC 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.

(iv) 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 CrPC.

If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

The Delhi High Court has today directed the former BJP Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Subramanian Swamy to handover his Delhi bungalow to the estate officer within a span of six weeks. 

The Single-judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma, have finally disposed off the plea by Swamy seeking re-allotment of his bungalow where he is residing since January 2016 in view of security reasons.

The Court in its order said “The court notes that the allotment was made for five year and that period has come to an end.

The court further noted that the court has not been shown any material which mandates or requires allotment of government accommodation to Z category protectee.

The bunglow was allotted to Swamy h in Delhi by the Centre for 5 years in January 2016. He continued to live there throughout his Rajya Sabha tenure which came to an end in April 2022.

Swamy was suppose to vacate the premises, but he instead approached the Delhi High Court seeking re-allotment of the bungalow in view of the continued security threat to him.

Also Read: Delhi High Court issues notice to Centre on Hindu refugees from Pakistan living in slums without electricity

He continues to be Z category protectee.

The Centre today opposed the plea arguing that even though the security perception towards Swamy hasn’t been downgraded, there is no obligation on the government to provide an accommodation to him along with security cover.

Sanjay Jain, the ASG  who appeared for Centre stated that the government will continue provivinsecurity to the senior leader, subject to periodical reviews, but re-allotment the bungalow in question is not possible.

Mr. Jain informed that Swamy has a house in Delhi where he can shift. He also assured that agencies will take all steps to ensure his safety there.

The Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta who appeared for Swamy argued that bearing in mind the security threat to Swamy, the house in question is needed to accommodate the security personnel who accompany the former MP at all times.

The lawyer for Swamy added,

“Till today the number of guards has not gone down… Swamy has no difficulty in shifting to his personal accommodation but it is insufficient. As a protectee, He is required to ensure that they (security personnel) rest and their basic needs are met.”

Also Read:

• Delhi HC dismisses PIL seeking identification of CBI, ED officials harassing private liquor vendors
• Delhi High Court takes suo motu cognizance of Mundka sewer deaths
• Delhi High Court quashes plea seeking display of information on all items on e-commerce sites