Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50763 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajkaran Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Raj Karan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Raj Karan Yadav under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.133 of 2021 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Mariyahu, District -Jaunpur during pendency of the trial.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No.2, one criminal case being Case Crime No.25 of 2021, under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 5 (Jha), 6 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station-Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.24574 of 2021.
It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. It is next contended that no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 13.02.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has not pointed out any other criminal case except the aforesaid criminal case.
Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Rajkaran Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 SK Goswami