Allahabad High Court
Gulshan Yadav @ Gulab Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2024
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80496 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40028 of 2022 Applicant :- Gulshan Yadav @ Gulab Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Chauhan,Rudra Pratap Pandey,Vidhu Bhushan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Daga,Deepak Dubey,G.A.,Ray Sahab Yadav Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.
1. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey and Sri Amit Daga, learned counsels for the informant and perused the material brought on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 364, 387, 328, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, during pendency of trial.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 09.11.2011 when the informant was going to the temple with his brother-Pukhraj and as they reached to ITI Pahariya, applicant and his associates stopped them by overtaking Fortuner Car in front of informant's Activa Scooty and took them to their house where informant and his brother was beaten by kick, feet and stick. They told to informant that in case he would not withdraw the case filed against them, they will shoot them. Accused persons also claimed that informant to return Rs. 3 lacs, which they spent in filing of the case. The accused persons poured hair dye in mouth and pushed them on ground. The informant anyhow manged to escape from the spot, thereafter brother of the informant got admitted in Rani Laxmibai Medical College, Jhansi.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due on account of political rivalry. The F.I.R. is delayed by seven months for which no plausible explanation has been given which create suspicion in the prosecution story. Applicant has criminal history of 41 cases, the same has been explained in bail application. It is very much clear from the record of Rani Laxmibai Medical college, Jhansi that injured-Aakash, who was admitted in the Hospital on 09.11.2021, absconded from the hospital on 10.01.2021 at 2 pm. From the statement of injured and informant, no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant for pouring hair dye and assaulting the injured. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. X-ray examination report does not disclose any fracture to injured. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another on 24.01.2020, relevant para 7 is quoted herein below:
"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in the case of Mahipal (supra) for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in the order impugned. The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail is not borne out from a prima-facie view of the evidence on record. The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed."
5. He also placed reliance over the Judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi Vs. State of UP and another, on 16.01.2012, relevant para 10 is quoted herein below:
"10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
6. Applicant's counsel has further placed reliance over the judgement passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Kant Yadav Vs. The State of U.P. in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.28420 of 2009 on 06.08.2010, relevant para 19 is quoted herein below:-
"19. Criminal antecedent of the applicant would not be a ground to refuse bail to the applicant when he is otherwise entitled to bail. In democratic set up one can see that even hardcore and outlawed became politicians by garnering public support and even some achieved pinnacle or Robinhood status. The court is not sympathetic with the applicant but considering entire accusation against the applicant and also keeping in mind the fact the complainant and one more witness have been examined in the court and chance of tempering the witness is slender, the applicant who is in jail since 25.8.2009 is entitled to be released on bail during trial period but with certain rider."
7. He next submitted that co-accused, namely, Bablu Yadav @ Gyan Singh, Puspendra Yadav, Roshan Yadav, Mangal Singh @ Kanchole and Dinesh Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.11.2022, 16.12.2022, 16.12.2022 and 05.03.2024 respectively, applicant's case is similar to the co-accused, who have been granted bail, as such, applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of same footing. Applicant has 41 cases of criminal history but in most of the cases he has been acquitted by the trial court. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.
8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that applicant's case is different from other co-accused as the applicant is leader of the gang and the main culprit of the case having 41 cases of criminal history. Informant's counsel Sri Deepak Dubey further submitted that applicant and informant had previous enmity and applicant and co-accused have brutally beaten the informant in the year 2016, as a result thereof, informant's spinal cord got fractured and FIR could not be lodged in time due to terror of the applicant and the same was lodged after about 9 months. There is terror of the applicant in the society, which is evident from his criminal history. On account of terror of the applicant, witnesses are not appearing in the prosecution case and in absence of statement of prosecution witnesses, applicant has been acquitted in various cases. He next argued that after the present incident, victim and informant immediately admitted in Medical College for treatment and after getting one day treatment, victim absconded from Medical College as victim got information that applicant and co-accused again assault them. As such, victim had no option except to abscond from Medical College. It is evident from medical report that hair dye was poured in the mouth of the victim, which support the prosecution story. He next argued that applicant is notorious person and from record it is clear that in various cases, in which applicant was involved, prosecution failed to proved his case as on account of witnesses were tampered, as a result thereof, applicant had been acquitted. If applicant is released on bail in present case, witnesses would be tampered.
9. In support of his contention, informant's counsel has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Bhawna Jaiswal Vs. Manish Mishra and another in Criminal Appeal No.1304 of 2023 on 28.04.2023, in which respondent-accused was involved in more than 22 cases and his bail application was rejected. He has next placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Sunita Bhati Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 441 on 21.06.2019, in which bail application of petitioner's husband was rejected on the ground that there was 45 cases of heinous crime pending against the husband of the petitioner. He further placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 (120) ACC 608 on 20.05.2022, the relevant paras 36 and 39 are quoted hereinbelow:-
"36. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the High Court has failed to take into consideration the following:-
• Respondent No.2/Accused has been named in the FIR bearing Crime Case No. 16/2021 lodged under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and was the main assailant who had a weapon in his hand. The main role of Respondent No.2/Accused was that he opened fire at the deceased due to which the bullet hit his right cheek and made its exit through the other side.
• The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2021 Respondent No.2/Accused had the intention to murder the deceased as there was previous enmity between him and the deceased with regard to some land which Respondent No.2 threatened to grab.
• On being asked about the incident by the Appellant/Informant's mother, the deceased replied "Ratipal ka dusra number ka ladka aur ram asre ka putra Sushil Yadav ne pull par gaadi rukwakar goli maar di hai or unke sath 2 ladke aur the". On re-clarifying, the deceased replied "Ratipal ka dusra number ka ladka matlab Harjeet Yadav".
• Respondent No.2/accused has clearly been named by the deceased and he was actively involved in opening fire which caused the death of the deceased.
• Respondent No. 2/Accused's statement was recorded by the then IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which he admitted to having committed the offence.
• Respondent No. 2 has a criminal history and several criminal matters have been lodged against him: (1) Case Crime no. 016/2021 U/s 302/34 IPC (2) Case Crime no. 020/2021 U/s 25 of the Arms Act (3) Proceedings of 110G on 05.11.2021 (4) Beat Information (G.D No. 33) dated 18.12.2021 (5) Beat Information (G.D. No. 44) dated 19.12.2021."
10. Informant's counsel has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu Vs. State of Bihar and another, passed on 30.09.2016, the relevant para 3 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"3. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the High Court committed a gross error in granting bail to the respondent-accused and did not consider the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the fact that he is a habitual offender, and that he has in the meantime been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases. The learned counsel further urged that the respondent-accused is a category-A history sheeter in view of his persistent criminal antecedents and as in the case in hand, he has been charged with the offence of facilitating murder of a witness in a case in which he was being tried, he ought not to have been granted bail in any view of the matter."
11. He lastly submitted that there is evidence against the applicant and applicant cannot be given benefit of parity with other co-accused that co-accused having no involvement in a long series of criminal cases and co-accused were only members of the gang organized by the applicant, as such, applicant being a leader of gang, having series of criminal history and chances of tampering of the witnesses, he is the main culprit, hence, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that applicant having long series of criminal history and evidences collected during investigation are supporting the prosecution story which is sufficient for implicating the applicant in the present case. From record, it is apparent that applicant's case is different from the cases of co-accused, who have been granted bail and parity claimed with co-accused cannot be accepted. Looking to the seriousness and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused-applicant, I do not find it is a fit case for bail to the applicant.
13. Accordingly, the present bail application of the applicant-Gulshan Yadav @ Gulab Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime, is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024 Nitin Verma (Deepak Verma, J.)