Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, Advocate appears and states that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant in the office on 24.8.2021. The same is not on record.
Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet in this regard.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahendra Sigh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant- Ramjit Yadav @ Ramjee Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 387 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 304, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Cholapur, District- Varanasi.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7237 of 2021. The said order is extracted herein below :-
"Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh learned AGA 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 applicants Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Ram and Ramjeet [email protected] Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 387 of 2020, under Section(s) 147, 148, 304, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Cholapur, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in the F.I.R. as many as eight persons including the applicants have been named and general role of assaulting upon the deceased has been given to them by kicks and fists, lathi and danda. It is argued that in the present case only one person namely Ram Dular Yadav has received injury and died. It is argued that the deceased has been stated to have received three injuries on his body as noted by the doctor out of which injury no. 1 is a lacerated wound, injury no. 2 is an abraded contusion and injury no. 3 was found to be a contusion after opening of scalp under which subdural hematoma was present and the doctor has opined that cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved.
It is argued that the injury received and particularly injury no. 3 as noted by the doctor has an internal damage of brain whereas injury no.1 was on the right big toe and injury no. 2 was on left lower thigh which is an abraded contusion which have not contributed towards the death of the deceased. It is argued that the author of the fatal injury is also not known and general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant of assaulting the deceased. It is further argued that in the alleged incident no other persons have received any injury. It is further argued while placing para-28 of the affidavit of present bail application that the applicants have no previous criminal history and they are not wanted or convicted in any criminal case and are in jail since 07.10.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. and have been said to have participated in the present incident in which only one person namely Ram Dular Yadav has received injury and died. Learned counsel for the first informant has argued that the averment made in para-28 of the affidavit in support of bail application, that the applicants have no criminal history and they are not wanted or convicted in any criminal case is false and incorrect inasmuch as it relates to the applicant no.2 Ramjeet [email protected] Yadav is concerned. It is argued that the applicant no. 2 Ramjeet [email protected] Yadav has been convicted in one case vide judgement and order dated 19.9.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 1, Varanasi in S.T. No. 295 of 1999, State of U.P. vs. Rajpati and others, under Sections 323/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(1) S.C./S.T. Act and recital made in the affidavit in support of bail application is false and incorrect. Copy of the said judgement and orders has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that the same is intentional concealment and the affidavit is of Bhaiya Lal Yadav who is none other but the son of sister of the applicant no. 2 Bhaiya Lal Yadav, who has sworn the affidavit. It is argued that the same was an intentional concealment just in order to conceal the conviction of the applicant no. 2 and hence, the bail application be rejected.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail and has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant and prayed that bail of the applicants be rejected.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the bail application of the applicant no.1 Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Ram is allowed.
Looking to the facts and circumstances regarding concealment of conviction of the applicant no. 2 in para-28 of the affidavit in support of bail application of the applicant no. 2 Ramjeet [email protected] Yadav is concerned, the prayer for bail in so far he is concerend is rejected."
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected as the criminal history of the applicant was not disclosed wherein he was convicted. It is argued while placing annexure no. 11 and para-27 of the affidavit in support of bail application, before the Court that against the judgement and order of conviction, the applicant preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 6034 of 2009, before this Court in which vide order dated 21.10.2009 he has been released on bail. Further there is one other criminal case being N.C.R. No. 272 of 2001, in which the applicant has been acquitted by the concerned court vide judgement and order dated 20.7.2004. It is further argued that co-accused namely Heera Lal Yadav, Shyam Singh @Pyare Lal and Gulab Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 22.2.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10154 of 2021(Heera Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and vide order dated 18.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10154 of 2021(Shyam Singh @Pyare Lal and another Vs. State of U.P.). It is argued that as such criminal history of the applicant stands disclosed and explained and the applicant be granted bail. He is in jail since 07.10.2020.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is a previously convicted accused. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence is pending for disposal. This is the third case of his involvement apart from other cases. It is argued that as such the prayer for bail be rejected.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is a previously convicted accused. Conviction and sentence as awarded is under challenge before this Court. The said appeal is stated to be pending.
Looking to the previous conviction of the applicant, no good ground is made out for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
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.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Naresh (Samit Gopal,J.)