Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16994 of 2021 Applicant :- Udal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
According to the prosecution version, on 05.10.2020 at 10:00 AM, son of informant, namely, Golu @ Rohit Yadav, has gone to village Sauram but after that he did not return back and after 2-3 days his decomposed dead body was found in the river.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in first information report and that he has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It was also submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 05.10.2020 but first information report has been lodged on 15.10.2020 and no explanation for delay in lodging first information report has been shown. Learned counsel submitted that the informant has also not named the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that after 80 days of incident, supplementary statement of informant was recorded on 26.12.2020, wherein he has alleged that the deceased was last seen along with applicant and other co-accused persons while they were purchasing liquor and that on 25.12.2020 applicant and co-accused persons have made extra judicial confession. It was further submitted that one Girdhari Yadav, who is maternal grand father of deceased, has stated that on 06.10.2020 applicant and co-accused Mulayam Yadav, Anil Yadav and Prince Yadav have took away the deceased with them and after that his dead body was found on 08.10.2020 but that statement has been recorded on 10.11.2020 and there is no explanation for delay in his statement. It has been submitted that the supplementary statement of first informant and the alleged statement of Girdhari Yadav cannot be believed as there is long and undue delay in recording their statements. It was submitted that there are no reasons that if they were aware about such facts, why they did not make such statements earlier. It has been submitted that no recovery has been effected from the possession of applicant. It has been further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2020, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Udal Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 316 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC, Police Station Nandganj, District Ghazipur, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 A. Tripathi