Allahabad High Court
Ramakant Yadav vs State Of Up on 16 December, 2024
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196538 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8846 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramakant Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Shailendra Kumar Yadav,Shri Krishan Yadav,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8889 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramakant Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Shri Krishan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sagir Ahmed, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.
2. These two bail applications are connected together in compliance of the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8846 of 2024 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court connecting them together. The said order reads as under:-
"This is the second bail application of the applicant. First bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4602 of 2023.
List this case on 15.04.2024 along with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8889 of 2024."
3. The Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8846 of 2024 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ramakant Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Sessions Trial No. 95 / 2023 (State Vs. Ramakant Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Section 60A Excise Act and Sections 272, 273, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.
4. The Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8889 of 2024 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Ramakant Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Sessions Trial No. 96 / 2023 (State Vs. Ramakant Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2022, under Section 60A Excise Act and Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh.
5. Both the bail applications are second bail applications. Initially the first bail applications of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4602 of 2023 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4605 of 2023 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) were rejected vide a common order dated 28.02.2023 by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. (as he was then). The said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard Mr. Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Somya Chaturvedi, Advocate, representing the accused-applicant, and Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent - State.
2. These two bail applications under Section 439 CrPC seeks bail in the following cases:-
"i. Crime/FIR No.060 of 2022, under Section 60A Excise Act read with Sections 272,273 and 34 IPC lodged at Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh; and ii. Crime/FIR No.039 of 2022, under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 60-A Excise Act lodged at Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh."
3. The FIRs came to be registered by the family of the victims, who had died after consuming country-made liquor allegedly purchased from the liquor shop of co-accused, Rangesh Yadav, a licensee, who is grand-son of sister of the accused-applicant, his close relative. Though co-accused, Rangesh Yadav is resident of District Jaunpur, but he has been issued license for country-made liquor shop at Town Mahul, District Azamgarh. It is alleged that though the licensee is co-accused, Rangesh Yadav, but real control of the shop is under the present accused-applicant.
4. It is alleged that nine persons had died by consuming spurious liquor purchased from the licensed shop in the name of co-accused, Rangesh Yadav. It is further alleged in the FIRs that co-accused, Rangesh Yadav with other accused, Suryabhan, Punit Kumar Yadav, Rambhoj and Ashok Yadav are manufacturing and selling spurious country-made liquor from the licensed shop which has resulted into death of nine persons. In the forensic examination of the VISCERA of the deceased, who had died after consuming liquor purchased from the shop allegedly under the control of the accused-applicant, methyl alcohol/ethyl alcohol poisonous substance was found. Viscera reports have been placed on record along with the bail applications.
5. The name of the accused-applicant has come into light in commission of the offence during investigation, however, he was not initially named in the FIRs.
6. After completing investigation, charge-sheets have been filed against the accused-applicant and co-accused under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 60-A of the Excise Act. It is important to mention here that an offence under Section 272 IPC entails imprisonment upto life as per Uttar Pradesh Amendment.
7. The accused-applicant had been four times Member of Parliament from Azamgarh Parliamentary Constituency and was elected five times as Member of Legislative Assembly from Phoolpur-Pawai Legislative Assembly Constituency. At present also, he represents the said Constituency in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
8. The accused-applicant is another Bahubali, a dreaded criminal and mafia don of Eastern Uttar Pradesh where Bahubali and Mafia culture is prevalent. This part of the Uttar Pradesh is adjacent to Bihar and to some extent political discourse and culture is similar to that of Bihar This region is dominated by Mafias Dons. These Mafias Dons have accumulated mind-boggling wealth and properties from proceeds of crimes. They have been enjoying patronage and shield from law by the Ruling Elite of the State. After entering into world of crime, these Mafias Dons and criminals have been exercising influence, terror and fear over the poor, law abiding citizens and have acquired forcibly/illegally properties worth thousand of crores of rupees. They have been successful in going scot-free, despite committing hundreds of heinous offences. They also get elected and become law-maker. It is a slur on Indian Democratic Policy.
9. The inglorious criminal history of the accused-applicant would suggest that he had been involved in as many as 48 other criminal cases and heinous offences, which would include eight cases of murder, registered under Section 302 IPC, besides cases of murder, the cases include offence under Section 307, 364 and 376 IPC, Gangsters Act, Goonda Act and SC/ST Act etc. Such a rich criminal background of the accused-applicant, which has been placed on record by means of Annexure-11 to the bail application, is extracted herein-below:-
"i. Crime/FIR No.043 of 1977, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
ii. Crime/FIR No. 049 of 1983, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
iii. Crime/FIR No.94-A of 1983, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
iv. Crime/FIR No.0111 of 1983, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
v. Crime/FIR No.0200 of 1983, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
vi. Crime/FIR No.074 of 1985, Police Station Shahganj, Jaunpur;
vii. Crime/FIR No.062 of 1986, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
8. Crime/FIR No.094 of 1986, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
9. NCR No. 075 of 1983, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
10. NCR No.0118 of 1984, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
11. NCR No.0123 of 1984, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
12. NCR No.0104 of 1985, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
13. NCR No.0105 of 1985, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
14. NCR No.0188 of 1985, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
15. NCR No.0168 of 1986, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
16. NCR No.028 of 1987, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
17. Crime/FIR No.083 of 1987, Police Station Ahraula; Azamgarh;
18. Crime/FIR No 087 of 1987, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
19. Crime/FIR No.099 of 1987, Police Station Shahganj, Azamgarh;
20. Crime/FIR No.36 of 1990, Police Station Shahganj, Azamgarh;
21. Crime/FIR No.0108 of 1991, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
22. Crime/FIR No. 06 of 1993, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
23. Crime/FIR No. 0425 of 1995, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow;
24. Crime/FIR No. 062 of 1995, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
25. Crime/FIR No.0120 of 1997, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
26. Crime/FIR No. 036 of 1998, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
27. Crime/FIR No. 0300 of 2000, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
28. Crime/FIR No. 0198 of 2001, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
29. Crime/FIR No. 0256 of 2002, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
30.Crime/FIR No. 0407 of 2004, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
31. Crime/FIR No. 0123 of 2004, Police Station Saraimeer, Azamgarh;
32. Crime/FIR No.049 of 2004, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
33. Crime/FIR No. 0412 of 2005, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
34. Crime/FIR No. 0512 of 2005, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
35. Crime/FIR No. 0156 of 2006, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
36. Crime/FIR No.067 of 2008, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
37. Crime/FIR No. 0622 of 2009, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
38.Crime/FIR No. 0241 of 2009, Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
39. Crime/FIR No. 0960 of 2010, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
40. Crime/FIR No. 056 of 2011, Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh;
41. Crime/FIR No. 012 of 2016, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
42.Crime/FIR No.015 of 2016, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
43.Crime/FIR No. 024 of 2016, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
44. Crime/FIR No.088 of 2017, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
45. Crime/FIR No.058 of 2020, Police Station Sidhari, Azamgarh;
46. Crime/FIR No. 063 of 2020, Police Station Sidhari, Azamgarh;
47. Crime/FIR No. 060 of 2022, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh; and
48. Crime/FIR No. 039 of 2022, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh."
10. The aforesaid detail of the criminal cases would disclose that the first offence, which the accused-applicant committed, relates to the year 1977 and first murder, in which he was accused, relates to the year 1983. Such a dreaded criminal, gangster, bahubali and mafia got elected time & again as a Member of Lok Sabha and Member of Legislative Assembly. This shows that something is seriously wrong and amiss with the electoral system of the largest democracy of the world where criminals, like the present accused-applicant, get elected time & again as a Member of Lok Sabha/ Legislative Assembly and become law-makers.
11. This Court, while rejecting the bail application of another Bahubali, Sitting Member of Parliament, Atul Kumar Singh, vide order dated 07.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5473 of 2022 had noted the increasing trend of criminals entering into politics and Parliament. It has been reported that 43% of the present Member of the Lok Sabha who got elected in 2019 General Elections are having criminal background, including the case of heinous offences. Some of the relevant paragraphs of the order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5473 of 2020 are extracted hereunder:-
" 14. A constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Public Interest Foundation & Ors vs Union of India & Anr : (2019) 3 SCC 224 has taken note of 244th Law Commission report in which it was said that 30 per cent or 152 sitting M.P.s were having criminal cases pending against them, of which about half i.e. 76 were having serious criminal cases. This phenomenon has increased with every general election. In 2004, 24 per cent of Lok Sabha M.Ps. had criminal cases pending, which increased to 30 per cent in 2009 elections. In 2014, it went up to 34 per cent and in 2019 as mentioned above, 43 per cent Members of Parliament who got elected for Lok Sabha are having criminal cases pending against them. The Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of criminalization of politics and imperative needs of electoral reforms. There have been several instances of persons charged with serious and heinous offences like murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoity got tickets to contest election from political parties and even got elected in large number of cases.
15. The Supreme Court has said that this leads to a very undesirous and embarrassing situation of law breakers becoming law makers and moving around police protection. The Supreme Court in the said case has directed the Election Commission of India to take appropriate measures to curb criminalization in politics but unfortunately collective will of the Parliament has not moved in the said direction to protect the Indian Democracy going in the hands of criminals, thugs and law breakers. If the politicians are law breakers, citizens cannot expect accountable and transparent governance and the society governed by the rule of law be an utopian idea. After independence with every election, role of identities such as caste, community, ethnicity, gender, religion etc, has been becoming more and more prominent in giving tickets to winnable candidates. These identities coupled with money and muscle power has made entry of criminals in politics easy and every political party without exception (may be with some difference in degree and extent) uses these criminals to win elections. Giving tickets to candidates with serious criminal charges would break the confidence and trust of the civil society, law abiding citizens of this country in the electoral politics and elections.
16. No one can dispute that the present day politics is caught in crime, identity, patronage, muscle and money network. Nexus between crime and politics is serious threat to democratic values and governance based on rule of law. Elections of Parliament and State Legislature and even for local bodies and panchayats are very expensive affairs. The record would show that the elected members of Lok Sabha with criminal records are extremely wealthier candidates. For example, in 2014 Lok Sabha election 16 out of 23 winners having criminal charges in their credit related to murder were multi-millionaire. After candidates get re-elected, their wealth and income grows manyfold which is evident from the fact that in 2014, 165 M.Ps. who got re-elected, their average wealth growth was Rs.7.5 Crores in 5 years.
17. Earlier, ''Bahubalis' and other criminals used to provide support to candidates on various considerations including caste, religion and political shelter but now criminals themselves are entering into politics and getting elected as the political parties do not have any inhibition in giving tickets to candidates with criminal background including those having heinous offence(s) registered against them. Confirmed criminal history sheeters and even those who are behind bars are given tickets by different political parties and surprisingly some of them get elected as well.
18. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to show its collective will to restrain the criminals from entering into the politics, Parliament or legislature to save democracy and the country governed on democratic principles and rule of law.
19. There is responsibility of civil society as well to rise above the parochial and narrow considerations of caste, community etc and to ensure that a candidate with criminal background does not get elected. Criminalization of politics and corruption in public life have become the biggest threats to idea of India, its democratic polity and world's largest democracy. There is an unholy alliance between organized crime, the politicians and the bureaucrats and this nexus between them have become pervasive reality. This phenomenon has eroded the credibility, effectiveness, and impartiality of the law enforcement agencies and administration. This has resulted into lack of trust and confidence in administration and justice delivery system of the country as the accused such as the present accused-applicant win over the witnesses, influence investigation and tamper with the evidence by using their money, muscle and political power. Alarming number of criminals reaching Parliament and State Assembly is a wake up call for all. Parliament and Election Commission of India are required to take effective measures to wean away criminals from politics and break unholy nexus between criminal politicians and bureaucrats.
20. This unholy nexus and unmindfulness of political establishment is the result of reaching person like the accused-applicant, a gangster, hardened criminal and ''Bahubali' to the Parliament and becoming a law maker. This Court, looking at the heinousness of offence, might of the accused, evidence available on record, impact on society, possibility of accused tampering with the evidence and influencing/ winning over the witnesses by using his muscle and money power does not find that there is a ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail at this stage. This bail application is thus, rejected."
12. In another case i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46494 of 2021 vide order dated 13.06.2022, in respect of another Bahubali, mafia don and the most dreaded criminal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has mentioned that the said mafia had managed his affairs in such a way that he has not received any conviction against him, which, in fact, is a challenge to the judicial system that such a dreaded and white colour criminal had remained undefeated and unabated.
13. This Court, in its judgment and Order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22865 of 2020, after noting the criminal history of more than 80 cases of the brother of the accused-applicant, who had also been got elected several times as Member of Lok Sabha and Member of Legislative Assembly, has said that the phenomena of hard-core criminals and mafia dons going scot-free in heinous offences and then getting elected and becoming law-makers, does not augur well for democracy, rule of law and society, which is to be governed by rule of law. Paragraph-9 of the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22865 of 2020 filed by brother of the accused-applicant would read as under:-
"9. The accused applicant had allegedly committed the first offence of murder in the year 1974 and in 48 years of his long and henious journey in world of crime, he could be convicted only in two cases recently in the year 2022. This phenomena is very perturbing and does not auger well for a democratic polity and a society which is governed by rule of law. All wings of the government i.e. executive, legislative and judiciary, must share the blame for allowing such a dreaded criminal to go scot-free in several henious offences which have been noted hereinabove. Such a criminal should not have any place in the society."
14. Mr. Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, representing the accused-applicant, submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present cases as he has nothing-to-do with the business of liquor shop of his relative. It is further submitted that five and half months, after lodging of the FIRs, statements of families of the deceased got recorded, which are stereotype, alleging therein that the accused-applicant is the real person behind the liquor shop and, under his umbrella, co-accused, Rangesh Yadav runs the liquor shop. The accused-applicant has overall control over manufacturing and selling of spurious liquor. It is submitted that these statements have no evidentiary value and, they are hear-say evidence, without there being anything on record to corroborate and suggest the involvement of the accused-applicant in running the liquor shop, manufacturing and selling the spurious liquor, as alleged, or otherwise. It is further submitted that though the accused-applicant has criminal history of several cases, however, he cannot be denied bail, as a long criminal history cannot be the sole ground to deny an accused bail, if there is no evidence to suggest his involvement in commission of offence, for which he seeks bail. It is, therefore, submitted that the accused-applicant, who has been languishing in jail since 27.07.2022, should be enlarged on bail.
15. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent - State, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that co-accused, Rangesh Yadav is resident of district Jaunpur and, he is only a mask and, real face, behind liquor shop, manufacturing and selling of spurious liquor, is of the accused-applicant. It is further submitted that the accused-applicant whenever had been enlarged on bail in a case, had committed one after another offence and, had misused the liberty of bail granted to him. It is further submitted that after committing a heinous offence, he could secure acquittal as the witness for his terror, fear and influence turned hostile. It is, therefore, submitted that there is every likelihood of the accused-applicant influencing the witnesses or terrorizing them, if enlarged on bail, and such a criminal is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
16. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, that the accused-applicant could secure acquittal in several heinous offences as no witness would dare to depose against such a dreaded criminal, gangster and mafia don. He strikes unparallel terror and fear in the hearts and minds of the people of district Azamgarh, and nearby districts. The witnesses would turn hostile or the trial would be dragged so that the witnesses get tired or eliminated.
17. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-applicant and the respondent - State.
18. Though the charge-sheets would disclose that the statements of the witnesses, who have taken name of the accused-applicant, could be recorded after five and a half months from the date of incident, but it appears to be true that opening mouth against such a dreaded criminal, mafia don and gangster could be to be peril of life and liberty of the witnesses and their families. Only when the witnesses could have been assured of their well-being, safety and security, they would have come forward to make statements against the accused-applicant.
- In the FIRs, it has specifically been mentioned that for the shop of co-accused, Rangesh Yadav, from-where the liquor was purchased by the deceased and, after its consumption, they became seriously ill and ultimately died. The witnesses have specifically said that shop in question is under the control of the accused-applicant and Rangesh is only a front-man but real person behind the scene is the accused-applicant. It was the accused-applicant who could secure the license for liquor shop in the name of Rangesh Yadav, who is grand-son of sister of the accused-applicant. Nine innocent persons had died by consuming poisonous liquor purchased from the shop allegedly under the control of the accused-applicant. The accuse-applicant has a long criminal history and, no one could have any sympathy for such a dreaded criminal of heinous offences. This Court should not take a lenient view in such a heinous offence. Nine persons had died because of greed and inhuman act of the accused. The criminals like present accused-applicant have accumulated mind-boggling wealth and properties by committing offences. Liquor is profitable business and is mostly controlled by mafias. Though, co-accused, Rangesh Yadav has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26822 of 2022, however, in the said order merit, heinousness of the offence and its societal impact have not been considered, which reads as under:-
"Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0039 of 2022, under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 60-A of Excise Act, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh.
3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 21.02.2022 lodged against the applicant Rangesh Yadav and four other named accused persons, alleging that on 20th February, 2022, the informant's father had purchased country liquor from the shop of the applicant, after consuming which the informant's father died. The other accused persons implicated in this case are said to be salesmen employed by the applicant.
4.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the basis of similar allegations, Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 272, 273, 302, 34 IPC and Section 60(A) of UP Excise Act and Case Crime No. 40 of 2022, under Section 272, 273 IPC and Section 60(A) of UP Excise Act were lodged against the applicant and in both the aforesaid cases, the applicant has been granted bail by means of orders dated 29.06.2022 and 25.07.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 26819 of 2022 and 31534 of 2022, respectively. She has further submitted that besides the applicant all the other accused persons have been granted bail in the present case.
6.The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
7.Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that applicant has been granted bail in two other cases involving similar allegations as also the fact that all the other co-accused have been granted bail, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is accordingly allowed.
8.Let the applicant - Rangesh Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0039 of 2022, under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 60-A of Excise Act, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
9.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application bail before this Court seeking cancellation of bail."
19. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the accused-applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Thus, these applications are hereby rejected at this stage."
6. Against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in both the bail applications, the applicant filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 4292-4293 / 2023 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) before the Apex Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2023 with the observation that if the trial does not make substantial progress within a period of six months, it will be open for the petitioner therein to apply for bail afresh before the High Court. The said order reads as under:-
"Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
After perusing the material on record, we find that as of today, no case is made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
We, however, make it clear that if the trial does not make substantial progress within a period of six months, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for bail afresh before the High Court. We have perused the observations made in the paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. According to us, the said observations were completely uncalled for while deciding the application for bail. Though we are not interfering with the final order, we expunge the observations made in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment.
Subject to above, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
Pending application also stands disposed of."
7. The present bail applications have thus been filed by the applicant before this Court.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8846 of 2024
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised a solitary argument regarding the delay in trial and no substantial progress in it. Without going into the merits of the matter it is submitted as under:-
(i) The order of the Apex Court dated 28.07.2023 was taken note of by the trial court concerned in its order dated 10.08.2023 and the trial court concerned showed its displeasure regarding the prosecution not producing witnesses in the trial (page 117 of the paper-book has been placed before the Court).
(ii) Charge in the matter has been framed on 18.04.2023.
(iii) As per the calendar filed by the prosecution 26 witnesses are to be produced by them for examination before the trial court (page 143 of the paper-book has been placed before the Court).
(iv) The statement of P.W.-1 to P.W.-6 being Annexure-8 to the affidavit has been placed to demonstrate that six witnesses were examined.
(v) Further supplementary affidavit dated 10.05.2024 has been placed demonstrating from Annexure SA-1 to it that P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have also been examined before the trial court.
(vi) While placing Annexure-2 to the 3rd supplementary affidavit dated 01.08.2024 it is submitted that P.W.-9 Kaushaliya has been examined before the trial court.
(vii) A statement at bar has been given by learned counsel for the applicant that the statement of P.W.-10 has also been recorded before the trial court.
(viii) There is no substantial progress in the trial in as much as out of 26 witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined whereas the Apex Court had directed that if in the next six months there is no substantial progress in the trial, the applicant may file bail afresh before the High Court and as such the present bail application has been filed.
(ix) Paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 29.02.2024 has been placed to argue that the applicant is in jail since 02.08.2022, the applicant be thus granted bail.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8889 of 2024
9. Learned counsel for the applicant like the leading matter confined his argument only on the delay in trial and no substantial progress therein without going into the merits of the matter and submitted as under:-
(i) The charge in the matter has been framed on 27.05.2023 (page 98 of the paper-book has been placed before the Court).
(ii) As per the calendar filed by the prosecution 68 witnesses have to be produced and examined in the trial (page 130 of the paper-book has been placed before the Court).
(iii) While placing Annexure-8 to the affidavit it is submitted that six prosecution witnesses have been examined.
(iv) As per the second supplementary affidavit dated 10.05.2024 the statements of P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have been recorded which are annexed as Annexure- SA-1 to the same.
(v) As per the Annexure- SA-2 to the third supplementary affidavit dated 01.08.2024 the statements of P.W.-9 Kaushaliya and P.W.-10 Ajay Kumar Sonkar have also been recorded.
(vi) A statement at bar has been made by learned counsel for the applicant that as on date a total of 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined.
(vii) There is no substantial progress in trial and thus looking to the order of the Apex Court, the present bail applications have been filed since the Apex Court had permitted the applicant to file bail afresh before the High Court if in the next six months there is no substantial progress in trial.
(viii) While placing paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit dated 29.02.2024 it is submitted that the applicant is jail since 30.07.2022. It is submitted that the applicant be thus released on bail.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the prayer for bail of the applicant in both the matters vehemently submitted as under:-
(i) These are second bail applications of the applicant.
(ii) The first bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits by order dated 28.02.2023.
(iii) The trial in both the matters is under progress even as per the own pleadings of the applicant in the bail applications and supplementary affidavits filed in them along with the statement made at bar today.
(iv) In the leading matter being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8846 of 2024, 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas in the other matter being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8889 of 2024, 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. It cannot be said that trial is not progressing and the applicant is in jail without any progress in trial.
(v) The applicant is reported to be having criminal history of 57 criminal cases including the present cases, the details of the same are as under:-
"1. Case Crime No. 39 of 2022, under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 60A of the Excise Act, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
2. Case Crime No. 43 of 1977, under Sections 323, 325 I.P.C. Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
3. Case Crime No. 49 of 1983, under Sections 323, 325, 352, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
4. Case Crime No. 94-A of 1983, under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
5. Case Crime No. 0111 of 1983, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
6. Case Crime No. 75 of 1983, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
7. Case Crime No. 200 of 1983, under Sections 147, 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
8. Case Crime No. 118 of 1984, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
9. Case Crime No. 123 of 1984, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
10. Case Crime No. 74 of 1985, under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, Jaunpur;
11. Case Crime No. 104 of 1985, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
12. Case Crime No. 105 of 1985, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
13. Case Crime No. 168 of 1985, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
14. Case Crime No. 188 of 1985, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
15. Case Crime No. 62 of 1986, under Sections 364, 342 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
16. Case Crime No. 94 of 1986, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
17. Case Crime No. 28 of 1987, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
18. Case Crime No. 83 of 1987, under Sections 364 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
19. Case Crime No. 87 of 1987, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. & Gangster Act, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
20. Case Crime No. 99 of 1987, under Sections 24/25 Arms Act, Police Station Shahganj, Jaunpur;
21. Case Crime No. 36 of 1990, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, Jaunpur;
22. Case Crime No. 108 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
23. Case Crime No. 06 of 1993, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Didarganj, Azamgarh;
24. Case Crime No. 62 of 1995, under Sections 3 (1) Gangster Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
25. Case Crime No. 85 of 1995, under Sections 447, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
26. Case Crime No. 423 of 1995, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 365, 368, 427, 342, 452 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow;
27. Case Crime No. 120 of 1997, under Sections 147, 149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
28. Case Crime No. 587 of 1997, under Sections 3 (1) Gangster Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
29. Case Crime No. 36 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 435, 338, 336 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
30. Case Crime No. 36A of 1998, 336, 307, 427, 147 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
31. Case Crime No. 300 of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
32. Case Crime No. 198 of 2001, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
33. Case Crime No. 256 of 2002, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
34. Case Crime No. 303 of 2002, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
35. Case Crime No. 407 of 2004, under Section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station Deedarganj, Azamgarh;
36. Case Crime No. 123 of 2004, under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & SC/ST Act, Police Station Saraimeer, Azamgarh;
37. Case Crime No. 49 of 2004, under Section 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh;
38. Case Crime No. 412 of 2005, under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 452 I.P.C. & Section 7 C.L. Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
39. Case Crime No. 512 of 2005, under Section 147, 148, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 7 C.L. Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
40. Case Crime No. 156 of 2005, under Section 142, 143, 186, 353, 341 I.P.C., Police Station Deedarganj, Azamgarh;
41. Case Crime No. 87 of 2006, under Section 143, 341 I.P.C., Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
42. Case Crime No. 622 of 2009, under Section 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
43. Case Crime No. 241 of 2009, under Section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station Deedarganj, Azamgarh;
44. Case Crime No. 960 of 2010, under Section 147, 341, 332, 353, 188, 153, 283, 505 (2) I.P.C. & Section 7 C.L. Act Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
45. Case Crime No. 56 of 2011, under Section 147, 341, 188 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh;
46. Case Crime No. 181 of 2012, under Section 188, 341, 188 I.P.C.,, Police Station Tahbarpur, Azamgarh;
47. Case Crime No. 132 of 2015, under Section 147, 148, 323, 352, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Seedhari, Azamgarh;
48. Case Crime No. 12 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
49. Case Crime No. 15 of 2016, under Section 186, 188, Police Station Pawai, Azamgarh;
50. Case Crime No. 24 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 151, 186, 283, 342, 353 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
51. Case Crime No. 88 of 2017, under Section 120B, 147, 148, 307, 352, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
52. Case Crime No. 656 of 2019, under Section 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh;
53. Case Crime No. 58 of 2020, under Section 188, 269, 505, 511 I.P.C. & 3 Epidemic Act, Police Station Seedhari, Azamgarh;
54. Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Section 188, 269, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Seedhari, Azamgarh;
55. Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Section 34, 272, 273 I.P.C. & 60 Excise Act, Police Station Phoolpur, Azamgarh;
56. Case Crime No. 64 of 2022, under Section 171F, 323, 34, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jahanaganj, Azamgarh;
57. Case Crime No. 40 of 2022, under Section 272, 273 I.P.C. & 60 Excise Act, Police Station Ahraula, Azamgarh."
(vi) In Case Crime No. 656 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur (serial no.52 in the list of criminal cases), the applicant has been convicted vide judgement & order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Jaunpur in Case No. 150 / 2021 (State Vs. Ramakant) for simple imprisonment for 04 months and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 147 I.P.C., simple imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323/149 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for 02 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 504 I.P.C. and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal preferred against the judgement & order dated 30.05.2023 before the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Jaunpur being Criminal Appeal No. 69 / 2023 was dismissed vide judgement & order dated 02.01.2024. A Criminal Revision No. 621 / 2024 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) has then been filed before this Court which is pending disposal.
(vii) Thus the applicant is a person having been convicted by the trial court concerned which has been affirmed by the appellate court.
(viii) Amongst the criminal history of 57 cases (including the present two cases), the applicant is involved in serious offences which are 09 (nine) cases under Section 302 I.P.C., 08 (eight) cases under Section 307 I.P.C., 02 (two) cases under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (in the years 1995 & 1997) and two cases under Sections 110G Cr.P.C. (in the years 2004 & 2009).
(ix) The applicant is having a long criminal history and looking to the limited argument raised that there is no substantial progress in trial but to the contrary on the own pleadings and statement at bar in both the bail applications, it is evident that trial is under progress in which the testimony of witnesses is being recorded, there is no ground for interference in the present bail applications and the same deserve to be dismissed.
11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that these are two second bail applications. The first bail applications of the applicant were rejected vide a common order dated 28.02.2023 passed by another Bench of this Court. The said order was subjected to challenge before the Apex Court and the petition therein was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file a bail application before the High Court afresh if there is no substantial progress in trial after six months. In one of the cases on the own showing and statement of learned counsel for the applicant 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined whereas in the other case 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The trial court is well aware of the order of the Apex Court disposing of the petition by the applicant as would reflect from its order dated 10.08.2023 passed in it. There is nothing on record to show that trial is being intentionally delayed or being lingered for any obvious reason. It cannot be said that the trial is not substantially progressing. The applicant has a long criminal history and has even been convicted in one case by the trial court against which an appeal has been dismissed and a revision against the same is pending before the High Court. No ground exists to entertain these two bail applications.
12. Accordingly, the bail applications are rejected.
13. The trial court is again reminded of the order of the Apex Court and ensure that the trial is not unnecessarily delayed.
14. Office to communicate this order to the concerned District & Sessions Judge and the trial court concerned forthwith.
15. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.12.2024 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)