Allahabad High Court
Ram Lakhan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Another on 27 August, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 487 of 2020 Appellant :- Ram Lakhan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 15.02.2020, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act), Hardoi in Case Crime No.384 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 323, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (5), 3(1) (R) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Atrauli, District- Hardoi. Further a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant/applicant on bail in the said case crime.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that according to the prosecution there was a dispute in relation to the land between the deceased Madhu Rani and her sons with Guddu Yadav. It has been submitted that earlier on the date of occurrence the disputed agricultural land was measured by Lekhpal and during the measurement various objections were raised by various parties. When deceased Madhu Rani and her sons were returning back and they were passing through the house of Guddu Yadav, they were assailed by Guddu Yadav, Ram Lakhan, Ram Bhajan, Bhainu Yadav, Baijnath and Chhottan Yadav. According the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it has come that Madhu Rani was inflicted blow by these persons. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 27.11.2018 having no criminal history. The appellant/applicant has further claimed parity of the bail granted by this Court to co-accused Baijnath vide its order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Bail No.8299 of 2019 wherein it has been observed that there is no legal and cogent evidence against that applicant, who was roped on the basis of suspicion and surmises only nor any incriminating material was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant and the main role of causing injury to the deceased is assigned to Guddu Yadav. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused-Guddu Yadav. It is further submitted that in case the appellant/applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused-applicant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.02.2020, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act), Hardoi in Case Crime No.384 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 323, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (5), 3(1) (R) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Atrauli, District-Hardoi is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant (Ram Lakhan Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant/applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(ii) The appellant/applicant 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/applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant/applicant 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 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.
Order Date :- 27.8.2020 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.