Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18982 of 2019 Applicant :- Ashok @ Pappu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pandey,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. for the State today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ashok @ Pappu Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Didarganj, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further argued that as per the prosecution version, the son of the informant, namely, Manoj @ Sonu, who works as salesman in alcohol shop, which is allotted in the name of one Jagram Yadav. On 12.01.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., Akash S/o Ravi Prakash informed the informant through telephone that Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) is not present in the shop. Therefore, he was searched and on 12.01.2019 at about 02:00 a.m. in the night, Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) was found in unconscious condition beside the alcohol shop and, thereafter, while he was being taken to hospital for treatment, he expired on the way, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. It is further argued that the present F.I.R. was lodged on 13.01.2019 at about 13:19 hrs. and on the same day, i.e. on 13.01.2019, the statement of the informant was recorded in which he has supported the prosecution version. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he is not involved in any way in the incident. For the first time, after nearly one month of the incident, i.e. on 13.02.2019, an application was moved before the Station House Officer concerned by the informant, who has suspected the involvement of Nilesh Yadav, Sani Yadav and Dipak Rajbhar in the murder of the deceased.
During the course of investigation, three persons, i.e. Nilesh Yadav, Shani Yadav and Dipak Rajbhar were arrested and in the statement of the co-accused-Nilesh Yadav before the Police, the name of the applicant has surfaced in which he has stated that he was told by the applicant that he had taken Rs. 50,000/- as debt from Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) and the deceased demanded money, therefore, they were asked by the applicant to murder him. It is further argued that since the statement has been given by the co-accused-Nilesh Yadav after being arrested by the Police, hence the same cannot be taken as an evidence against the applicant. It is further argued that the recovery memo goes to show that parts of the motorcycle of the deceased have been recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused- Sandeep Rajbhar whereas nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It is further argued that except the confessional statement of the co-accused- Nilesh Yadav before the Police, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2019. The criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit in support of bail application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 JK Yadav