Allahabad High Court
Chhotu Yadav @ Arun Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21022 of 2019
Applicant :- Chhotu Yadav @ Arun Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijendra Kumar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Sri Shailendra Kumar Rai, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant, is 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 the 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 during investigation after 7 days of the alleged incident in the statement of witness Satendra Singh who is said to be the eye witness of the alleged incident. Rajesh Singh and Ashwani Singh are also said to be the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. In the statement of eye witness Satendra Singh it has come that co-accused Prince Bind and Babu Lal Bind were holding iron rod in their hands. Lathi and Danda has been shown in the hands of applicant and other co-accused. The main allegation for causing injury to the deceased with iron rod has been made against co-accused Prince Bind and Babu Lal Bind. It has further been submitted that case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Prince Bind and Babu Lal Bind. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The co-accused Sandeep having identical role has already been released on bail by this court vide order dated 30.4.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18138 of 2019, therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 11.2.2019.
Per contra; learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused Sandeep having identical role has already been released on 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 Chhotu Yadav @ Arun 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 :- 20.5.2019
Masarrat
