Allahabad High Court
Munni Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Aniruddha Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24130 of 2019
Applicant :- Munni Lal Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Sahai Srivastava,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivekanand Rai
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Sahai Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Viveka Nand Rai,learned counsel for the complainant as well as Sri H.P. Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against six persons namely, Prateek Verma, Kiran Chandra Verma, Vipin Chandra Verma, Vinod Chandra Verma, Munni Lal Yadav and Sonu alleging that on 29.8.2018 Lalji Yadav(brother of complainant) and Ajay Yadav(nephew of complainant) were killed by blasting bomb. Sonu stated in his statement that he had planted bomb with the help of present applicant and Kiran Chandra Verma. Some pieces of wires were recovered from the house of applicant and Sonu(son of applicant).
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 3.9.2018(more than ten months) having no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated. Co-accused Kiran Chandra Verma has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48003 of 2018 (Bail order is annexed as annexure 10 to the bail application). There is no legal evidence against the applicant except confessional statement of Sonu(son of applicant) before police personnels. Recovery shown is false, fabricated and has no concerned with bomb blast. The applicant is servant of Vipin Chandra Verma and is getting salary. He is poor person. The case of applicant is better than Kiran Chandra Verma who has been enlarged on bail. There is no independent witness. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the 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 applicant Munni Lal Yadav involved in Case Crime No.444 of 2018, under Section 302, 34, 506, 120-B, 427, 336, 286 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983 and section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi 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 pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will 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 him 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 conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
P.P.
