Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Deptt. ... on 16 January, 2023
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7405 of 2022 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash Singh,Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 19.07.2021 in Case Crime No.316 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Rudauli, District - Faizabad/Ayodhya.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
While drawing attention of this Court towards the F.I.R., it is submitted that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of apprehension and in fact no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is also submitted that the motive, which has been developed subsequently in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, could also not be believed as the same is highly improbable and is not sufficient for committing an offence of the magnitude of murder. It is also submitted that the only evidence, which is available against the applicant, as per the case of the prosecution, is the confessional statement of the accused persons and alleged recovery of khurpi and fawda made on the joint pointing of the instant applicant and co-accused Mitrasen Yadav, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.883 of 2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity.
It is further submitted that khurpi and Fawda, which are shown to have been recovered on the joint pointing of the applicant and co-accused Mitrasen Yadav, were not even found bloodstained and the same have not been sent for forensic examination, therefore, the recovery of alleged weapon of assault could not be sufficient in absence of any other evidence to connect the applicant with the crime. It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 19.07.2021 and he is not having any criminal history, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the instant case is based on circumstantial evidence as nobody has claimed to have seen the commission of crime. The material, which has been placed against the applicant and other co-accused persons appears to be confessional statement of the accused applicant and other accused persons and the recovery of khurpi and fawda on the joint pointing of the instant applicant and co-accused Mitrasen Yadav, which have not been found bloodstained and there is nothing in the counter affidavit of the State, which may suggest that the same have been sent for forensic examination. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 19.07.2021 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, co-accused Mitrasen Yadav, having similar role, has been enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is thus allowed.
Let applicant- Pradeep Kumar Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-
(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.
(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
Observations made herein-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 16.1.2023 RBS/-