Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19662 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Mohan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Upadhyay
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Keshari Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ram Mohan Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 191of 2020 (S.T. No. 120 of 2021), under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R. has been registered on 12.7.2020 at about 14:30 hours by Amit Kumar stating therein that in the night of 28/29.6.2020 at about 10.00 A.M. some unknown persons assaulted his brother Atul Kumar with lathi and danda and threw him near the railway line. He received injuries on his body. The villagers while going to ease themselves in the morning found him in an unconscious state. The F.I.R. has been registered against unknown persons. It is argued that subsequently Atul Kumar was taken for medical treatment and was being treated after which he died on 13.7.2020. It is argued that subsequently on 01.8.2020 the police informer informs the police that there is a gossip in the village that the applicant and the other co-accused persons are friends of the deceased and they may be asked about the incident after which they will be telling the truth.
Later on, on 4.8.2020 the second statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he states that the co-accused Rakesh Yadav gave his extra judicial confession to him and stated of his implication and also the implication of the applicant and other accused persons. It is argued that subsequently on 5.8.2020 an iron rod saria and lathi have been recovered from the house of the co-accused Rakesh Yadav. Subsequently on 12.8.2020 the applicant was arrested and his confessional statement to the police was recorded which is an inadmissible evidence. There is no recovery of any incriminating article either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident. There is no credible evidence to implicate the applicant in the present case. The implication of the applicant is based on falsity and without any credible evidence. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para-25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.8.2020.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the evidence against the applicant is the information of the police informer to the police stating about the involvement of the applicant, extra-judicial confession of the co-accused Rakesh Yadav and then confession of the applicant to the police. It is argued that the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. has been registered against unknown persons. The implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Ram Mohan Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Naresh