Allahabad High Court
Subash Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 18 February, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23543 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15437 of 2024 Applicant :- Subash Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar,Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Ayush Mishra,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Subash Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 513 of 2023, Case Crime No.94 of 2023, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46419 of 2023 (Subash Yadav vs. State of U.P.).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the trial, 14 witnesses have been examined and witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that the first informant and Moti Lal have disowned the prosecution story and have been declared hostile by the trial court. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 16.07.2023.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023. The said order reads as under :-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Sheetala Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Subash Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 94 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, registered at P.S. Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria.
4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 04.07.2023 by Amarjeet Singh against the applicant and Sudha Devi alleging therein that his younger brother Chandrama Singh was married in the year 2015 and had a son with Sudha Devi. Sudha was having love relationship with Subhash Yadav the applicant and his brother on coming to know of it opposed it. Sudha got angry about a year back and went to her maternal house. On 22.06.2023 in the marriage of daughter of the informant, Sudha did not come. On 25.06.2023 Sudha called his brother Chandrama Singh to her maternal house. On 28.06.2023 police of Police Station Bhatpar Rani was informed that his brother has been murdered after which he reached there and was informed that the body has been sent for postmortem. The dead body of his brother was found about 200 meters away from the maternal house of Sudha. Sudha along with her lover Subhash Yadav has murdered his brother Chandrama and had thrown his body in the drain.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that there is no eye witness to the murder. It is argued that in the present matter subsequently, two persons surfaced as eye witnesses being Smt. Rinki Devi and Moti Lal. It is argued that in the statement of Rinki Devi there is no such credible information given which would implicate the applicant in the present matter. It is argued that in so far as Moti Lal is concerned, he has although stated that at about 09:00 pm on 25.06.2023 he saw Subhash and Sudha carrying some person on their shoulder and Sudha was carrying a polythene along with a pant and were going towards the cremation ground. He got terrified and then ran away towards the house. It is argued that Moti Lal was interrogated after ten days of the incident which is in itself sufficient to show that he was a got up and cooked up witness. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material. Para 13 and 14 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court to buttress the said arguments. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.07.2023.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. It is further argued that there are call details which was collected during investigation which goes to show the calls between Sudha Devi and the applicant at the time of the incident. It is argued that the present case is a case of witness Moti Lal seeing the applicant and co-accused Sudha Devi carrying someone on their shoulder after which the body of the deceased was found. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and Smt. Sudha Devi. The applicant has motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. The allegation is of the applicant of having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased which was being objected by the deceased and the applicant and co-accused were seeing carrying the body of someone by Moti Lal and throwing it. The body was recovered from the said place. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused Sudha Devi. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected."
8. In the trial court, 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined and witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile. The first informant Amarjeet and one Moti Lal, the alleged witnesses of circumstance of the accused persons carrying some substance have also not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile.
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
10. Let the applicant - Subash Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
11. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
12. The bail application is allowed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Manoj