Allahabad High Court
Nagendra Kumar Yadav @ Nan vs State Of U.P. on 3 December, 2015
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 11
Case :- BAIL No. - 10072 of 2015
Applicant :- Nagendra Kumar Yadav @ Nan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dayashankar Mishra,Pradeep Rastogi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pramod Kumar
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A have filed counter affidavits as well as learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name came into the light during the investigation. It has further been submitted that arrest of the applicant and three other co-accused namely Dinesh Kumar Mali, Chabban and Girija Shanker Pal have been shown from the house of the applicant on 23.7.2015. In fact, the applicant was arrested by the police on 18.7.2015. In this regard telegrams and applications have been sent by father of the applicant to higher authorities concerned. It has further been submitted that only the recovery of Rs. 200/- and one mobile have been shown from the possession of the applicant. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It has further been submitted that in confessional statement of co-accused Girija Shanker Pal it has come that co-accused Bachchan Awasthi @ Babloo opened fire upon the deceased. In postmortem report only one gun shot wound has been found on the body of the deceased. The applicant has not caused any injury to the deceased. There is no motive against the applicant. The applicant has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. There is no criminal history of the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in statement of the witness Kuldeep Yadav it has come that the applicant was also seen by him at the place of the occurrence. It has further been submitted that the applicant and other co-accused have committed the murder of the deceased, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Nagendra Kumar Yadav @ Nan involved in Case Crime No. 214 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 506, 120B, 404 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.
3. The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 3.12.2015
A.
