Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 29 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 35 of 2020 Appellant :- Anil Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Aashish Kumar Singh,Sudhir Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard, Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Sailendra Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the order dated 07.12.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in bail application No.1751 of 2019 and 2490 of 2019 in respect of Case Case No.232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120-B, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Section 7 CRLA, Act and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 04.08.2019 at 10.00 a.m. brother of the complainant was going by his motorcycle with Jagga @ Jagnarain and when they reached near the flour mill of Kariya Dubey, then co-villagers/co-accused namely Shiv Bhushan Pandey, Amarjet Yadav, Ramjeet Yadav, Ram Singh opened fire on Suresh Kumar Yadav, on account of old enmity and due to fire arm injury, he died. When Jagga @ Jagnarain and Kriya Dubey tried to save them, they also received fire arm injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. On the written complaint of complainant, FIR was registered on 05.08.2019 and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day but the name of applicant does not find place in his statement. He further submitted that the statement of injured namely Jagga @ Jagnarain was recorded on 08.08.2019, he stated in his statement that Baliram Nishad and Anil Kumar Yadav (appellant) visited the spot. The identical statement was also given by injured namely Kariya Dubey and role of reiki is assigned to the appellant. On 26.08.2019, the statement of Gayan Prakash Pandey was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that he heard the conversation between the Baliram Nishad and Anil Kumar Yadav and he admitted that they did reiki and he also admitted that on the date of incident, he accompanied with Kariya Dubey for his treatment but he never informed to the Police about the role and extra judicial confession of the applicant and co-accused Baliram Nishad. It is not a case of prosecution that he was actively participated in the incident. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the confessional statement of Gayan Prakash Pandey, the role of reiki is assigned to the appellant but they conceded the fact that statement of Gayan Prakash Pandey, was recorded after 21 days but he admitted that he was with the Kariya Dubey for his treatment but he never informed to the police.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, namely, Anil Kumar Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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 appellant 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 appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 appellant 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2020 Amit/-