Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34491 of 2019 Applicant :- Gangadin Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Deo Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Ramesh Sahni, Mithai Sahni, Rahul Sahni and Manoj Sahni alleging that on 25.5.2019 at 7:00 hours Santosh Sahni, son of the complainant, was killed. He received four injuries and three were on head. During investigation, bricks, stick (hockey) and bamboo used in the crime were recovered at the pointing out of Ramesh Sahni and Vijay @ Mithai Sahni. During investigation the names of Ganga Deen and Bheem Sahni were surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Ramesh Sahni before the Police alleging that they were also indulged in the crime.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and is languishing in jail since 12.6.2019 (about two and half months) having no criminal history. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. There is no legal and cogent evidence against the applicant expect confessional statement of co-accused Ramesh Sahni before the Police personnel and an affidavit filed by the complainant after a long time. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the applicant. The name of the applicant was disclosed after thought and upon due legal consultation. Specific role of assault has been assigned to co-accused Vijay @ Mithai Sahni. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co- accused Vijay @ Mithai Sahni. There is no independent witness/eye witness account against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Gangadin Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2019, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Maharajganj, District-Azamgarh 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant 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 applicant 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.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 OP