Allahabad High Court
Guddu Singh Urf Yogendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 21 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57197 of 2022 Applicant :- Guddu Singh Urf Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Man Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Upendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri B.K. Singh Parmar, learned A.G.A for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the co-accused, namely, Krishna Kumar Singh Urf Kallu, Shamsher Singh @ Pappu, Sajjan Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Rajju Urf Raj Bahadur Singh and Pappu Urf Kareem have been granted bail vide orders dated 16.12.2022, 29.11.2022, 15.12.2022, 14.12.2022, 08.12.2022 and 14.11.2022 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55458 of 2022 (Krishna Kumar Singh Urf Kallu Vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42857 of 2022 (Shamsher Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57192 of 2022 (Sajjan Singh Vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54194 of 2022 (Dhirendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54208 of 2022 (Rajju Urf Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45615 of 2022 (Pappu Urf Kareem Vs. State of U.P.) respectively. The applicant claims parity on the ground that the role of the applicant is at par with all the co-accused, who have been granted bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2022 and is otherwise stated to have no previous criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as the counsel for the complainant though opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the role of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who have been granted bail.
Bearing the fact in mind that the case of the applicant is at par with the case of all the co-accused, who have been granted bail vide aforesaid orders and having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Guddu Singh Urf Yogendra Singh involved in Case Crime No. 0120 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Vindhyachal, District- Mirzapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The 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 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
Order Date :- 21.12.2022 Arun K. Singh