Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45913 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramdarash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant/complainant, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
Applicant while describing the various facets of the incident has claimed that this is purely a dispute of civil nature. No criminal liability is accrued to the applicant. Assuming it to be that the allegations are correct, even then the role of the applicant is that of a marginal witness and criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the applicant mainly on the ground that the vendee of the transaction is the wife of the applicant. Civil suit/litigation regarding the subject matter of the dispute is pending between the parties. The main person who sold/executed the sale deed is not the applicant and he has got no connection with the offence in question. Chandrabhan is the vendor, therefore the role of the applicant is entirely different. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since, 30.10.2018. Applicant promises that, in case, he is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant - Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that after due investigation by the authority concerned it has come out specifically the mischievous and fraudulent role played by the applicant by posing her wife to be the vendee, who has illegally obtained advantage and has tried to divest the informant of this case of his lawful right.
In the background of his argument, he has come out with specific fact that the father of the informant and the applicant is the same and he died twenty years ago leaving three sons. The house of the father was divided/taken possession of by the three sons. The applicant master-minded the transaction and by posing his wife to be vendee thus colluding with another co- accused – Chandrabhan - the vendor, got the sale deed executed fraudulently to the disadvantage of the informant. All this mischievous activities were done to the dis-advantage of the informant.
Learned A.G.A. has supported the claim raised by the learned counsel for the informant and has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances, it is no denying fact that the applicant has gained advantage by posing his wife as the vendee of the transaction.
Considered the submissions so raised and also considered the accusation, obviously in so far as the imputation is concerned, the applicant happens to be a marginal witness. Good ground for bail is made out.
Let the applicant – Ramdarash Yadav involved in Case Crime No.93 of 2018, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station – Maharajganj, District – Azamgarh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
However, it is made clear that advantage of this bail shall not go to both the vendor and the vendee of this case, whose complicity at this stage cannot be denied.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 S Rawat