# Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 547
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16768 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prakash-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47128
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 437 - Excise Act, 1958
- Section 60(2) - Indian Penal Code -
Section 272 - Adulteration of food or drink
intended for sale - Bail - Grant of -allegation
that applicant was adultering urea in deshi
liquor - applicant neither arrested from the
alleged spot nor any illegal material recovered
from the possession of the applicant - no
offence under any Section of I.P.C. made out -
offence does not cover beyond the offence of
the Excise Act - offence u/s 60(2) Excise Act is
triable by Magistrate - no criminal history of the
applicant - Bail granted (Para 3, 4, 9)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Ram Prakash Vs. State of U.P.
547
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing

10. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

11. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2021)06ILR A547
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16768 of 2021

Ram Prakash ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Surat Patel

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 437 - Excise Act, 1958
- Section 60(2) - Indian Penal Code -
Section 272 - Adulteration of food or drink
intended for sale - Bail - Grant of -allegation
that applicant was adultering urea in deshi
liquor - applicant neither arrested from the
alleged spot nor any illegal material recovered
from the possession of the applicant - no
offence under any Section of I.P.C. made out -
offence does not cover beyond the offence of
the Excise Act - offence u/s 60(2) Excise Act is
triable by Magistrate - no criminal history of the
applicant - Bail granted (Para 3, 4, 9)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.

2. Applicant has moved the present
bail application seeking bail in Case Crime
No. 142 of 2021, under Section 60(2) of
U.P. Excise Act and Section 272 I.P.C.,
P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

3. Learned counsel for applicant
submits that a false and concocted F.I.R.
has been lodged by the informant against
the applicant on 25.02.2021 at 11:20 P.M.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that
as per the FIR version, the informant-Sri
Ashok
Kumar
Verma,
Sub-Inspector
alongwith some other police personnel on
the information of Mukhbir Khas raided at
the shop of parchoon where applicant was
adultering urea in deshi liquor. The police
arrested the applicant and recovered 200
pieces of polythene, 500 gram urea and 20
liters of deshi liquor from his possession.
The entire prosecution story made in the
FIR is false, fabricated and concocted due
to non-fulfilment of their illegal demand.
The offence under Section 60(2) Excise
Act is triable by Magistrate and no case is
made out in any section of the IPC. There
is no criminal history of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has falsely been
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
implicated in the present case due to ulterior
motive. There is no allegation in the F.I.R.
that any person died while consuming the
said liquor. He further submits that the police
with malafide intention has been regularly
lodging F.I.Rs. against those persons, who
have either caught or being seen nearby some
places where the country made liquor is being
sold by the Government license holders.

5. He further submits that the whole
prosecution story is false and concocted.
The applicant has neither been arrested from
the alleged spot nor any illegal material has
been recovered from the possession of the
applicant. The recovery memo is totally
false. He further submits that no offence
under any Section of I.P.C. is made out. The
offence does not cover beyond the offence
of the Excise Act. Thus, the prosecution
case does not go beyond the purview of the
Excise Act.

6. Several other submissions in order to
demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant have also been
placed
forth
before
the
Court.
The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed out
that the accused is not having any criminal
history and he is in jail since 26.02.2021 and
that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases
in the Court, there is no likelihood of any
early conclusion of trial.

7. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the
bail application.

8. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and larger mandate of Article
21 of the Constitution of India and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP
and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC
22, this Court is of the view that the
applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Ram Prakash
involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2021,
under Section 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act and
Section 272 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Orai,
District Jalaun, be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned on the following
conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in
any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.
6 All. Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549

(5)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(6) The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the order from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing

11. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

12. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2021)06ILR A549
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Service Single No. 10297 of 2021

Smt. Sandhya Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Verma, Arun Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c)
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Regulations 103, 107, Section 16-G.

Words and Phrases - "Member of the
Family" - Regulation 103 - "Member of the
family" as per the "explanation" given in
Regulation 103, means widow/widower, son,
unmarried or divorced daughter of the deceased
employee. On a plain reading of Regulation 103,
'married daughter' is not covered under the
expression "member of the family". (Para 11,
15)

Words and Phrases - 'तात्पर्य' - The
expression "member of family" in Regulation
103, uses the word 'तात्पर्य'. In legal Glossary,
4th Edition 1988, published by the Central
Government, Department of Law and Justice,
the English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is, i) purport; ii)
tenor. The meaning of "purport", in the same
Legal Glossary, is "to mean; to have its purport;
to profess or claim by its tenor", and the
meaning of "Tenor" in the same Legal Glossary
is "apparent". (Para 12)

In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Fifth Edition by
John S. James, one of the meanings of the word
"tenor" is to recite verbatim i.e. exactly as it is
spoken or written. Supreme Court has held that
'purporting' is indicative of what appears on the
face of it or is apparent even though in law it
may not be so. (Para 13, 14)

Interpretation of Regulation 103 - The
English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is "to mean", and the
use of this expression in "member of family" in
Regulation 103 makes only those persons
member of family, which are "apparent". Those
who are included are apparent and those who
are not included are not apparent and cannot be
the member of family in Regulation 103.
'Member of family' in Regulation 103 is
therefore exhaustive of the list of members
mentioned therein, as, had it been the intention
of the Regulation making authority, to bring
within the 'member of family' the 'married
daughter', it would have been included in the
like
manner
other
relations
have
been
specifically included. Apparently, "married