Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7404 of 2018 Applicant :- Akhilesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Rai, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Akhilesh Yadav in Case Crime No. 655 of 2017, under Sections 419, 406, 342, 323, 506, 306 IPC, P.S. Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the allegations the applicant Akhilesh Yadav allured his son into paying a sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- on a representation that one Virendra Yadav, a relative of his and an native of Jaunpur would secure employment for the informant's son as a Lekhpal; that Akhilesh Yadav represented to the informant's son that Virendra Yadav was well connected in the circles of power and would manage that appointment for him; that informant's son Vikas Kumar Gupta transferred money in the sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- to the account of one Laxmina Devi w/o Virendra Yadav at the bidding of the applicant Akhilesh Yadav; that it is pointed out that the prosecution case further goes to the effect that Akhilesh Yadav referred the applicant to one Rajendra Yadav, a relative of Akhilesh Yadav to ascertain his credibility before parting with money but the applicant's son transferred the money to the account of Laxmi Devi w/o Virendra Yadav; that the prosecution case further is that when no appointment as promised was secured for the informant's son and he asked for his money back the informant's son got a call from Akhilesh Yadav on 26.08.2017 saying that they had seven crores of old currency notes which they had to change and would refund his money; that another similarly circumstanced person, Santosh Agarhari and the informant's son were called by the applicant to his relative Virendra Yadav's house situated in Machchali Shahar, Jaunpur purportedly to refund his money where the applicant and Santosh Agarhari both were locked in a room and thrashed, and, made to swear that they would never demand their money back; that thereafter the informant's son went into a depression and once again when the applicant refused to refund his money the applicant's son committed suicide on 05.10.2017 at 8 p.m.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire allegations against him are false and whatever transaction had taken place is with the consent of the informant's son which too is in the account of Laxmi Devi w/o Virendra Yadav that has nothing to do with the applicant as asserted in paragraph 13 of the affidavit; and, that in any case under the circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any act of instigation which had led the deceased to commit suicide.
On the other hand Sri Anurag Rai, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA have submitted in one voice that the applicant Akhilesh Yadav, Virendra Yadav, Laxmi Devi w/o Virendra Yadav and Rajendra Yadav are an organized gang of cheats who are into alluring unemployed young men to part with money with a false promise of government employment; that in this case the evidence is clear that the informant's son and another Santosh Agarhari were allured into parting with a substantial sum of money by transferring it to an account of Laxmi Devi, at the bidding of the applicant Akhilesh Yadav, who is the wife of Virendra Yadav about whom the applicant represented to be well known connected in the higher echelons of government and for a reference the name of Rajendra Yadav was cited. The submission is that the applicant also has a criminal history as mentioned in paragraph 14 of the affidavit and the aforesaid persons have together cheated a number of young men with the same kind of allurement.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the nature of allegation, the gravity of the offence, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that a sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- was transferred through ATM and cash by the informant's son to the account of Smt. Laxmi Devi w/o Virendra Yadav who is not otherwise the acquaintance of the applicant is prima facie evidence enough of the applicant's involvement in concert with Virendra Yadav and Laxmi Devi into a racquet involving the duping gullible members of the public of hard earned money by false promise of government employment by cheating and fraud; but without expressing any opinion on merits this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application stands rejected.
It is clarified here that anything said in this order is absolutely limited for the purpose of a decision of this bail application and would not prejudice the case of the parties on merits before the trial court.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Imroz