Allahabad High Court
Tirath Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- BAIL No. - 7537 of 2021
Applicant :- Tirath Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Yadav,Subhash Chandra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court, are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused records.
3. The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.40 of 2016, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.
4. The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail-plea of the accused-applicant by learned District and Sessions Judge, Virtual Court, Lucknow vide order dated 8.6.2021.
5. Reading over the first information report, learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that prosecution case in brief may be stated, the complainant-Kiran Yadav, whose husband was suffering from cancer, died ultimately due to the disease. Meanwhile, when the complainant was burden with heavy expenditure, it is alleged that her father-in-law, the co-accused, Ram Bachan Yadav got executed a forged sale deed by posing an imposter woman in her place, to transfer the property in his favour, which was purchased by the complainant herself, through her personal earning and stree dhan. It is further alleged in the first information report that the co-accused-Arvind Yadav, the elder brother of her deceased husband was talking with the co-accused, Ram Bachan Yadav that it is good that the property situated in Lucknow, comes in their ownership by virtue of the sale deed, then only the complainant could know about the forged sale deed, therefore, the first information report was lodged. In the above noted sale deed, the first witness is husband of complainant namely Anirudh Yadav and second witness is the present applicant. The sale deed was executed in favour of co-accused Ram Bachan Yadav.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that no civil action for cancellation of sale deed is instituted in any civil court where the proper remedy is available. The role of present accused-applicant is not assigned in any capacity, he was just the second witness. Further, learned counsel submitted that the present accused-applicant, who has no criminal antecedent may also be given benefit of parity as the co-accused, Ram Bachan Yadav, who is alleged in the first information report, has already been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2017 passed in Bail No.10473 of 2016. He also claimed parity of bail granted to another co-accused Arvind Yadav, who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.2.2021, passed in Bail No.2138 of 2021. He further submits that in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposes the bail application but does not dispute the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I, without making any comment as to the merit of the case, the complicity of accused in the offences, his role, looking to the ground of parity, have found force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge them on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant (Tirath Yadav) involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
Gautam
