Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43631 of 2021 Applicant :- Nanhe Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Preet Pal Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Nanhe Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -547 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 149, 304, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station -Sahaswan, District -Budaun, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) against FIR lodged on 23.12.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 12.02.2021;
(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;
(iv) though chargesheet has already been submitted, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the others have been named on account of political rivalries. Though, it is a fact that the deceased made statement against the co-accused Rakesh in another civil enquiry, the FIR allegations are stated to be completely made up. In an indiscriminate assault upon the alleged victim with hard and blunt object, the post mortem report records no external injuries, the cause of death has remained uncertain in the post mortem report. The viscera was preserved. However, nothing has emerged till now. As to the other injuries claimed by the injured persons, it has been submitted that all injuries are simple in nature.
(vi) learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application as he would submit that the doctor has opined that the cardiac arrest could have been caused by a heavy object.
(vii) having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present, the applicant appears to be entitled to bail even if the statement of the doctor to be considered, there were no external injuries shown as may warrant rejection of bail, at this stage.
(viii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State and or the informant that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
5. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, the bail being granted shall be cancelled.
6. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 S.Chaurasia