Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 30 April, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18138 of 2019
Applicant :- Sandeep Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Shailendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged against Shahid, Prince Bind, Kranti Bind, Puneet Yadav and one unknown by Prince Singh son of Rajesh Singh for committing marpit with deceased and injured person. The name of applicant came into light in the information of informer after 4 days of the alleged incident. Prem Chand Singh @ Munna Singh is father of deceased. He is not eye witness of the alleged occurrence. In his statement it has come that he was informed by Rajesh Singh, Satendra Singh and Ashwani Singh about the alleged incident. The above witnesses have seen the alleged incident. In the statement of witness Rakesh Singh it has come that applicant was also present along with other co-accused and the accused persons were holding Danda in their hands. The co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind were holding iron rods in their hands and some accused persons were covering their faces with cloth. He has further stated that co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind caused injury to the deceased with iron rod. Witness Umang Singh has made general allegation against the applicant and other co-accused for committing marpit with deceased. Satendra Singh who is said to be eye witness in his statement has disclosed the name of applicant and he has also stated that co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind were holding iron rods in their hands and they were committing marpit with deceased and have caused injury to the deceased. It has further been submitted that as per postmortem report 9 injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 are on head. Rest injuries are on non vital part of the body of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased has been shown ante mortem head injury. It has further been submitted that iron rod has been shown in the hands of co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind. In the statements of eye witnesses Rakesh Singh and Satendra Singh it has come that co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind have committed marpit with deceased with iron rod. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Prince Bind and Babulal Bind. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 1.2.2019.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the name of applicant came into light during investigation. Rakesh Singh and Satendra Singh are said to be eye witnesses of the alleged incident. In their statements it has come that the applicant was also present along with other co-accused. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 06 of 2019, under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 evidence.
2. He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
3. He shall 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 be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019
Masarrat
