Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 522 of 2018 Appellant :- Devendar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kant Tiwari,Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri on behalf of opposite party, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 18.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur by which the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in Case Crime No.01 of 2018, under Sections 364, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5 S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. According to the version of FIR, Sheshmani, who is the husband of the first informant, is alleged to have been abducted by Bal Vidya Vikas Yadav, Subash Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Ramraj Yadav, on which the first informant resisted them to do so as a result of which they abused her and used caste- related words and threatened to beat her (first informant). It is next contended that applicant was not named in the FIR but his name came into light in the subsequent statement of Sheshmani. It is next submitted that Sheshmani has filed an affidavit on 2.1.2018 before the S.P., Bhadohi stating therein that he was not abducted by any person and he went to Vindhyachal for Darshan and came back on 1.1.2018. Further, it is submitted that co-accused Ramraj Yadav, Subash Chand Yadav and Ahsutosh Yadav have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.02.2018, 20.02.2018 and 20.02.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.518 of 2018, 585 of 2018 and 515 of 2018 and thus, the appellant is also entitled for bail. It has also been submitted that appellant has no criminal history. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has been in jail since 11.01.2018 and he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the opposite party conceded the ground of parity for bail to the appellant.
Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the learned Court below has acted wrongly in rejecting the bail application hence, the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur by which the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in Case Crime No.01 of 2018, under Sections 364, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5 S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, is liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed by Spl. Judge SC/ST Act by which the bail application of the appellant has been rejected, is set aside and the bail application of the appellant stands allowed.
Let the appellant, Devendar Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2018, under Sections 364, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5 S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station- Bhadohi, District Bhadohi on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 appellant 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 appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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 appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Radhika