Allahabad High Court
Hemant Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 19 June, 2018
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22378 of 2018
Applicant :- Hemant Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Applicant- Hemant Yadav seeks bail in Case Crime No. S.T. No.551 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2014, under Sections 302 I.P.C, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased who had gone to the police station after the occurrence accompanied with one Manoj Kumar who is an eye witness of the incident and was also present with the deceased at the time of accident. The name of the applicant surfaced for the first time in the statement of Manoj Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who although was admittedly present at Police Station on the lodging of F.I.R. but had not disclosed the name of the accused/applicant, otherwise the first informant would have certainly named the applicant as an accused in the present case.
From the statement of Manoj Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it is absolutely clear that the applicant has been nominated as an accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C as an afterthought.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that apart from statement of Manoj Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C indicating complicity of the applicant there is no incriminating material evidence on record to connect him with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 4.7.2014 and the trial has not made any progress, as such, applicant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.
It is further submitted that similarly placed accused Anil Yadav alias Patti had already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16374 of 2015 vide order dated 17.5.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering the evidence. The applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let applicant-Hemant Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 19.6.2018
SFH
