Allahabad High Court
Mitrasen Yadav vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home on 4 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 883 of 2022 Applicant :- Mitrasen Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Mitrasen Yadav for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.316 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
While drawing attention of this Court towards the F.I.R., it is submitted that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of apprehension and in fact no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is also submitted that the motive, which has been developed subsequently in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, could also not be believed as the same is highly improbable and is not sufficient for committing an offence of the magnitude of murder. It is also submitted that the only evidence, which is available against the applicant, as per the case of the prosecution, is the confessional statement of the accused persons and alleged recovery of khurpi and fawda made on the joint pointing of the instant applicant and co-accused Pradeep Kumar Yadav.
It is further submitted that khurpi and Fawda, which are shown to have been recovered on the joint pointing of the applicant and co-accused Pradeep Kumar Yadav, were not even found bloodstained and the same have not been sent for forensic examination, therefore, the recovery of alleged weapon of assault could not be sufficient in absence of any other evidence to connect the applicant with the crime. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 19.07.2021 and he is not having any criminal history, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence as nobody has claimed to have seen the commission of crime. The material, which has been placed against the applicant and other co-accused persons appears to be confessional statement of the accused applicant and other accused persons and the recovery of khurpi and fawda on the joint pointing of the instant applicant and co-accused Pradeep Kumar Yadav, which have not been found bloodstained and there is nothing in the counter affidavit of the State, which may suggest that the same have been sent for forensic examination. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 19.07.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the accused/applicant-Mitrasen Yadav involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Anupam S/-