Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1983 of 2020 Appellant :- Sadanand Gaur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjay Singh,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar,Ram Shish Ram
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Notice sent to respondent no. 2 as per of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been served personally but none has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Sadanand Gaur with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.05.2020, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 536 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur.
The first information report has been lodged on 26.01.2020 by respondent no. 2 in respect of incident dated 25.01.2020 against Shailendra Yadav and Arvind Yadav with the allegation that the deceased received a phone call and he told that Dinesh Chauhan and Pramod Yadav with accused Shailendra Yadav have called him. He went to meet them but did not return for the long time. He was searched but there was no trace of him and, therefore, the missing report was given in the police station. Thereafter, his dead body was recovered from the side of road and he was identified. He was killed by the named accused persons in respect of some money transaction.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is not named in the first information report and his name come in light in the confessional statement of named accused Shailendra Yadav who has already been released on bail by the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.01.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1982 of 2020. Similarly, the appeals of other co-accused persons namely Arvind Yadav, Deepak Yadav have also been allowed. Copies of the order have been produced which are taken on record. It has further been submitted that except the confessional statement of co-accused, there is no evidence against the accused-appellant. This fact was totally ignored by the learned Special Judge and the bail application was rejected, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the the prayer and has submitted that after due consideration of the matter, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application.
Considered the submission of both the sides. The fact is that appellant is not named in the first information report and also the fact is that the name of the accused-appellant has come in light only in the confessional statement of co-accused Shailendra Yadav and he is already released on bail. The case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The accused-appellant has not assigned any specific role and no deadly weapon has been used for the commission of the offence, as such all these facts have been ignored by the learned Special Judge while rejected the bail application of the accused-appellant. As such, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.05.2020, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 536 of 2020 is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant namely Sadanand Gaur involved in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur is granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
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 appellant to prison.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 sailesh