Court No. - 54
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6864 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyamu Shukla
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Saqib Meezan, learned AGA for the State.
This is an application for bail on behalf of Rajendra Yadav in Case Crime No. 655 of 2017, under Sections 419, 406, 342, 323, 506, 306 IPC, P.S. Shahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that according to the allegations the applicant Akhilesh Yadav allured his son into paying a sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- on a representation that one Virendra Yadav, a relative of his and an native of Jaunpur would secure employment for the informant's son as a Lekhpal; that Akhilesh Yadav represented to the informant's son that Virendra Yadav was well connected in the circles of power and would manage that appointment for him; that informant's son Vikas Kumar Gupta transferred money in the sum of Rs. 6,58,000/- to the account of one Laxmina Devi w/o Virendra Yadav at the bidding of the applicant Akhilesh Yadav; that it is pointed out that the prosecution case further goes to the effect that Akhilesh Yadav referred the applicant to one Rajendra Yadav, a relative of Akhilesh Yadav to ascertain his credibility before parting with money but the applicant's son transferred the money to the account of Laxmi Devi w/o Virendra Yadav; that the prosecution case further is that when no appointment as promised was secured for the informant's son and he asked for his money back the informant's son got a call from Akhilesh Yadav on 26.08.2017 saying that they had seven crores of old currency notes which they had to change and would refund his money; that another similarly circumstanced person Santosh Agarhari and the informant's son were called by the applicant to his relative Virendra Yadav's house situated in Machchali Shahar, Jaunpur purportedly to refund his money where the applicant and Santosh Agarhari both were locked in a room and thrashed, and, made to swear that they would never demand their money back; that thereafter the informant's son went into a depression and once again when the applicant refused to refund his money the applicant's son committed suicide on 05.10.2017 at 8 p.m.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that his case is clearly distinguishable form the case of the co-accused Akhilesh Yadav, Laxmi Devi and Virendra Yadav inasmuch as his name alone has been taken by way of a reference to the informant's son so as to assure himself of the credibility of Akhilesh Yadav and Virendra Yadav and nothing more. It is also submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected do not carry any allegation much less evidence that the applicant Rajendra Yadav was contacted by the informant's son, the victim or that the applicant certified the credibility of co-accused Akhilesh Yadav and Laxmi Devi. As such, so far as the applicant is concerned there is absolutely no evidence against him of being connected to the group who are said to have cheated the informant's son leading him to commit suicide.
The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has said that the applicant is as much a part of the group comprising Akhilesh Yadav, Virendra Yadav and Laxmi Devi as any of them and they have worked together to cheat and dupe the informant's son and a number of other young men of their hard earned and money with a false promise of public employment. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that there is no overt action or association appearing against the applicant Rajendra Yadav except a reference to his name by Akhilesh Yadav for certification of his own credibility which too apparently was not certified by the applicant prima facie, but without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
It is made clear that the order passed in the present case will not entitle the other co-accused in the present crime to claim parity.
Let the applicant Rajendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. 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 default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
However, looking to the period of detention of the applicant, it is directed that the trial pending before the concerned court below be concluded expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle laid down in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220, if there is no legal impediment.
It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court shall initiate necessary coercive measures to ensure their presence positively.
Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for strict compliance.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Imroz