Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34834 of 2021 Applicant :- Umesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indra Prakash Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.165 of 2021 at Police Station-Mirzapur, District-Shahjahanpur under Sections 436, 506, 427 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur on 02.07.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 23.05.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant did not cause fire to the houses. The fire resulted from a cracker burst mishap. The crackers were being lit up by the villagers in a marriage ceremony. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, learned AGA points out that criminal history of one case under the Arms Act has not been disclosed by the applicant in the bail application.
Rejoining the issue, Shri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the aforesaid case has no bearing on the instant case.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Umesh Kumar involved in Case Crime No.165 of 2021 at Police Station-Mirzapur, District-Shahjahanpur under Sections 436, 506, 427 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 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 following conditions.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not influence any witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Ashish Tripathi