Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55349 of 2019 Applicant :- Sonu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amarnath Tripathi, Indra Kumar Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Deena Nath
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Sonu Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.444 of 2018, under Sections 302, 34, 506, 120-B, 427, 336, 286 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 and Section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.
As per prosecution version, the first information report was lodged against six persons, namely, Prateek Verma @ Vicky Verma, Kiran Chandra Verma, Vipin Chandra Verma, Vinod Chandra Verma, Munni Lal Yadav and Sonu alleging that on 29.03.2018 Lalji Yadav, brother of the complainant and his nephew, namely Ajay Yadav were killed by planting bombs and during investigation the police recorded the confessional statement of the applicant, who has deposed that he had planted the bombs with the help of his father Munni Lal Yadav and Kiran Chandra Verma and some pieces of wire were allegedly shown to have been recovered from the house of the applicant.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that except confessional statement of the applicant and the alleged recovery of wire and battery there is no other reliable evidence against the applicant. He further submitted that the incident is not witnessed by any independent witness and the applicant was not last seen by any witnesses or at the occurrence site. He submitted that co-accused Kiran Chandra Verma and Munni Lal Yadav have been admitted to the concession of bail by another Bench of this Court by orders dated 17.01.2019 and 09.07.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.48003 of 2018 (Kiran Chandra Verma) and 24130 of 2019 (Munni Lal Yadav), copy whereof have been annexed on page nos.86 and 89 of the bail application, and the role assigned to the applicant is similar to the role of the other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He claims parity. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea and have submitted that the applicant has planted the bombs. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factum of parity.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused and also the fact that the aforesaid co-accused have been admitted to the concession of bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.
Let the applicant Sonu Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on 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 shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;
v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 R./