Allahabad High Court
Lal Bahadur Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2023
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171687 Reserved On:- 21.08.2023 Delivered On:-25.08.2023 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34053 of 2023 Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Chauhan,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Miss. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lal Bahadur Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Devgaon,, District-Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.
3. There is allegation in the FIR that on 13.08.2020, the informant and her son, Vinod Yadav, were travelling on one motorcycle and her husband, Heera Lal Yadav and her another son, Tej Kumar Yadav, were on another motorcycle they had gone to Lalganj for purchasing medicines and when they were returning back to their house at about 5:00 pm, the co-accused, Dileep Yadav and Surendra Yadav, stopped them in the way and called her husband, Heera Lal Yadav and her son, Tej Kumar Yadav, to their house for talking. The informant and her another son Vinod Yadav, stayed on the road. During talks, the applicant and co-accused persons fired on her husband, Heera Lal Yadav. Seeing the incident, her son, Tej Kumar Yadav, ran outside the house and was fired upon by, Lal Bahadur, the applicant and Ranjeet Yadav, the co-accused. Her husband and son, Tej Kumar Yadav both died.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been assigned the role of causing fatal fire arm injury to the son of informant, Tej Kumar Yadav. She has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is 60 % disabled. The post mortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased suffered from fire arm wounds of entry of dimension 1 x 1 cm fired from close range since blackening was present around the wound. One exit wound was found on his body. It has submitted that the applicant who is 60% disabled from his waist to lower limbs cannot be expected to run behind a young boy and shoot from him close range. Such a role can be assigned to the co-accused, Ranjeet Yadav, whose bail application has already been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide Bail Application No. 49685 of 2022. The dimensions of the injuries shows that firing was made on the deceased from a single weapon. It has further been pointed out that the deceased, Heera Lal Yadav, had long criminal history. The implication of applicant has been made because of election and land dispute between the parties. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 24.08.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemtnly opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and have submitted that bail application of the co-accused, Ranjeet Yadav, has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) The 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.
8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
9. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.
11. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days.
Order Date :-25.08.2023 Abhishek