Allahabad High Court
Chetan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 6 December, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55567 of 2022 Applicant :- Chetan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Instant application for bail has been filed by applicant-Chetan Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 308 of 2022 under Sections 326A, 120B, 34 I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali Kanch, District-Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.
4. It transpires from record that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 21.09.2021, a prompt F.I.R. dated 21.09.2021 was lodged by first informant Chandra Prakash Saini (Father of the victim) and was registered as Case Crime No. 308 of 2022 under Section 326A I.P.C. Police Station- Kotwali Kanch, District-Jalaun. In the aforesaid F.I.R. an unknown person has been arraigned as an accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that on 21.09.2021 at around 1.00 PM two unknown person came on a motorcycle and they poured acid on the body of daughter of first informant, on account of which, she sustained injury.
6. After registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, he examined an alleged eye witness of the occurrence namely Prem Narayan (jeeja of the victim). In the statement of Prem Narayan complicity of nine persons namely Prem Narayan, Shurendra, Gaurav, Vinay Singh, Risabh (Rishabh) @ Amit, Chetan Yadav, Chandra Shekhar @ Chandra, Rohit, Anshu Yadav @ Sanjiv came to surface. In her dying declaration the prosecutrix has nominated two persons namely Arun Srivastava and Phool Singh in the crime in question.
7. On the basis of above as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of aforementioned nine persons is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, he submitted the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2021 whereby aforementioned mentioned nine persons have been charge-sheeted under Sections 326A, 120B, 34 I.P.C.
8. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He is not named in the F.I.R. Complicity of applicant in the crime in question has surfaced in the statement of Prem Narayan (jeeja of the victim), who is not an eye witness of the occurrence. It is then contended that subsequent to the incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings, dying declaration of the victim was recorded wherein she has implicated two persons namely Arun Srivastava and Phool Singh in the crime in question. According to learned counsel for applicant, after submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by court concerned. Since the offence complained of is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, accordingly, the case was committed to Court of Sessions by the concerned Magistrate. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2022 (State Vs. Prem Narayan and others) under Sections 326A, 120B, 34 I.P.C. came to be registered.
9. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that upto this stage only two prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined i.e. P.W.-1 Chandra Prakash Saini (first informant) and P.W.-2 Akansha (victim). Aforesaid two witnesses have not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Resultantly, they have been declared hostile. It is next contended that out of nine charge-sheeted accused, four charge-sheeted accused namely Gaurav, Vinay Singh, Anshu Yasav @ Sanjiv and Risabh (Rishabh @ Amit have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Photocopies of bail orders of respective accused are at pages 103 to 110 of the paper book.
10. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of aforementioned four co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from the aforesaid four co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant. It is thus urged that in view of the facts noted above and also the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused are similarly situate, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is also contended that applicant is in jail since 04.10.2021. Thus he has under-gone almost one year and two months of incarceration. In case applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is lastly submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted against applicant therefore the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant, stands crystallised. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during the course of trial. On the cumulative strength of above, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity also.
11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the applicant is a charge-sheeted accused, therefore he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. He further submits that applicant has criminal history of three cases which fact has not been duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A submits applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant, at this stage.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon consideration of evidence on record, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that similarly situate charge-sheetd accused have already been enlarged on bail by this court, photocopies of respective bail orders are on record from page 103 to 110 of the paper-book. there being no distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from that of four charge-sheeted co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant, P.W.-1, first informant and P.W.-2, victim having turned hostile but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
13. Accordingly, present application for bail is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Chetan Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail 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) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) 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) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
15. 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 of applicant and send him to prison Order Date :- 6.12.2022 YK