Pradeep Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 2496 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- BAIL No. - 10956 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Sher Bahadur Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awanish Kumar Upadhyay,Surendra Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

The case is called out.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Awanish Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Abhay Kumar, Advocate and perused the record.

The present bail application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant-Pradeep Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.146/2019, under Sections 147, 148, 302/34 and 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Baskhari, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

The occasion of present bail application has arisen on the rejection of bail plea of the accused-applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 03.10.2019.

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit between the parties have been exchanged. As such, the case is riped for hearing.

The present bail-applicant is not named in the F.I.R., admittedly, the name of present accused-applicant-Pradeep Yadav came into light first time on 31.07.2019, when the police party was informed by reliable source of police about arrival of motor bike of shooters, wanted in the killing of the deceased-Ram Chandra Jaiswal in the incident under F.I.R. On the information, the police trapped the bikers, one of them fled away, however, the person who was caught by the police, when interrogated, told his name Pradeep Yadav. The arrest memo coupled with recovery memo made annexure to the bail-application further discloses that, on interrogation the arrested 'Pradeep Yadav' confessed the conversation with co-accused Vinod Mishra alongwith Satya Prakash @ Rinku Maurya to kill one Phool Chandra. Further it is argued that, only for this statement under confession, police connected the present accused-applicant with the co-accused Satya Prakash. Learned counsel submitted that the present accused-applicant is arraigned without any basis as such he is falsely implicated.

Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-applicant is a local resident within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, not in a position to flee away from the process of the Court and will abide himself, if he is granted bail, to appear in trial, as and when required.

However, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant both have informed the Court that trial is running, where PW-1 (the complainant) have already been examined and other witnesses are being examined.

Learned counsel for the bail-applicant submitted that the present accused-applicant is also to get benefit of parity, as the co-accused 'Nadeem', who is alleged to have been directly involved in the shooting and killing of the deceased and Shiv Prakash Maurya, allegedly on whose instructions, the occurrence took place, have already been released on bail vide order dated 25.11.2020 passed in Bail No.11067 of 2019 and order dated 03.02.2021 passed in Bail No.11125 of 2019.

After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed by respective parties on record, it would be pertinent to refer the object of bail as discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, in para-21, 22 and 23 as under:-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, ?necessity? is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

Since, learned A.G.A has not rebutted that there is no possibility of fleeing away of the present accused applicant from the process of the Court as well he has no criminal antecedent prior to the present case, therefore, 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 find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicant to enlarge him on bail.

Learned trial court, in view of the fact that charge-sheet has submitted long back by the prosecution, is directed to expeditiously proceed with the trial, by recording evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses, if any, in accordance with law, to conclude the hearing and decide the case, as soon as practicably possible within a period of one year from the date, certified copy of the order produced before it.

Looking into the role, complicity of the accused-applicant in the offence, the prima facie case against him at this stage, without making any comment as to the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

Let applicant (Pradeep Yadav), involved in Case Crime No.146/2019, under Sections 147, 148, 302/34 and 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Baskhari, District- Ambedkar Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing 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 their 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 fails 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 applicants 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.

Order Date :- 18.2.2021

Saurabh