Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37789 of 2021 Applicant :- Pappu Yadav@ Upendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Janardan Yadav
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir and Mr. Jawahir Yadav, learned counsels for the applicant, Mr. Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is Jeth of deceased and that allegations made against applicant, that deceased was being harassed on account of dowry, are thoroughly false. It has been submitted that marriage of deceased with brother of applicant has taken place in the year 2003 and from that marriage they have two children and that after so many years, applicant has no reason at all to harass the deceased for dowry. Applicant has responsibility of his own five children. Learned counsel has referred the dying declaration of deceased, wherein, she has stated that her husband, Jeth (applicant), Jethani and mother-in-law have sprinkled kerosene and set her ablaze. Learned counsel submitted that only general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including applicant. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Reeta Devi @ Sunita, who is Jethani of deceased and Ramaji Devi @ Ramji Devi, who is mother-in-law of deceased, have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the copy of which, is available on record and that similar allegations were made against applicant in dying declaration of deceased. It was submitted that deceased has sustained 53% burns but the applicant has no concern with the matrimonial life of deceased or with incident. It has been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.07.2020 having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in her dying declaration, deceased has clearly stated that applicant and above stated co-accused persons have sprinkled kerosene and put her on fire. Learned counsel for the first informant submitted that in fact while granting bail to above stated co-accused persons, an argument was raised in that matter that there was no certificate of doctor regarding mental condition of victim. Learned counsel has referred the case of Surendra Bangali @ Surendra Singh Rautele v. State of Jharkhand, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1078 of 2010 decided on 04.02.2021 and submitted that before recording dying declaration, certificate of doctor regarding mental condition of victim is not mandatory. Learned counsel has submitted that when statement of deceased was recorded, doctor was present there and in view of all these facts, applicant cannot claim parity with said co-accused persons, Reeta Devi @ Sunita and Ramaji Devi @ Ramji Devi, who have been granted bail by this Court.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Pappu Yadav @ Upendra Yadav involved in Case Crime No.68 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304, 326, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Tarwa, District - Azamgarh, be released on bail on furnishing each 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 shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall 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 them 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 condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Neeraj