Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50517 of 2017 Applicant :- Santosh Yadav @ Guddu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amresh Yadav
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amresh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. He is innocent person. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In the present case, when one Arun Yadav came at the house of the applicant along with his associates, a scuffle took place between the parties and Vipul sustained injury due to his own fire arm. The applicant never assaulted Vipul as alleged in the F.I.R. in fact when Arun came at the house of the applicant along with his associates and assaulted the applicant, father, brother and wife of the applicant, Vipul sustained injury because he had a country made pistol and accidentally he received injury. There is a cross version as the applicant sustained injury along with his father, brother and wife.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon medical examination report, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the bail application. He further submitted that injury report shows that injury was found on the non-vital part of the body and not dangerous to life. The applicant has no previous criminal history.
Lastly he submitted that the applicant is in custody since 31.10.2017 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail, if he is released on bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and they submitted that injured sustained firearm injury. They relied upon medical report which has been annexed as Anneuxre-S.A-4 to the supplementary affidavit. They denied that there was any cross case.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Santosh Yadav @ Guddu Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 179 of 2017, under Sections 307, 352, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Maharajganj, District Azamgarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.
5. 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.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it is open to the opposite party to approach this Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Asha