Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2109 of 2018 Appellant :- Byas Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldip Singh Yadav,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey,Manoj Kumar
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and Sri Anurag Dubey and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 19.3.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mainpuri in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.348 of 2018 ( Byas Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2018, under Sections 364 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person alleging that on 2.2.2018 Pravin was abducted by some unknown person, later on, on the same day, he was recovered from the possession of Shubham Yadav and Byas Yadav. During investigation, it was found that Pravin was attempting to outrage the modesty of family girl of Shubham Yadav, hence they abducted Pravin. Shubham Yadav and Byas Yadav were arrested by the police personnel and Abhai, Kalloo and Babloo fled away from the place of occurrence.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 3.2.2018 (more than five and half months); having no criminal history; there is no independent witness; he has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no motive or intention of the present appellant in the incident; the main allegation has been levelled against Shubham Yadav and one country made pistol was recovered from the possession of Shubham Yadav and not the present appellant; he is 20 years of age and is studying and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.3.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Byas Yadav involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 OP