Allahabad High Court
Arvind Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 22 October, 2020
Author: Rakesh Srivastava
Bench: Rakesh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 24 Case :- BAIL No. - 3791 of 2020 Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased under Sections 363, 366 and 504 IPC against one Deepak Saini and two others. Subsequently, the body of the girl was recovered and then the applicant and certain others were implicated in the case on the charge of murder under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. The counsel contends that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses. It is further contended that though there are 20 ante mortem injuries, but there is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant which could have been used in the alleged crime. It has been pointed out that in Bail No. 11482 of 2019, Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P., the co-accused has been granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.08.2019. The counsel contends that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant, Arvind Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 304 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he would 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.
Order Date :- 22.10.2020 Pradeep/-