Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 17 June, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 674 of 2021
Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Irfan Khan
Along with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 680 of 2021
Appellant :- Gyanendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Irfan Khan
And
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 681 of 2021
Appellant :- Mohd. Aftab Alam
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Irfan Khan
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Since all the three aforesaid appeals arise out of same case crime number, as such, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment/order.
Heard Mr. Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned orders dated 25.03.2021 and 22.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lucknow, in Bail Application No. 2268 of 2021, 1596 of 2021 and 1598 of 2021 respectively arising out of Case Crime No.362 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow. The aforesaid bail applications of the applicants have been rejected vide impugned orders dated 25.03.2021 and 22.03.2021.
As per prosecution story, on 21.11.2020 first informant informed to the police that his son Rakesh Kumar Rawat had gone to celebrate birthday party where the appellants murdered his son.
Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. Next submission is that actually the deceased as well as appellants were celebrating the birthday party of appellant Vinay Kumar Yadav. During celebration of birthday party, deceased Rakesh Kumar Rawat took pistol of one Pankaj and accidentally fire was shot and due to this reason, the deceased had got severe gunshot injury. Thereafter the deceased was admitted in KGMU, Lucknow by the appellants. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that Annexure-2 clearly shows that the deceased was brought by appellant Gyanendra Kumar, therefore, the appellants have no concern to commit murder of deceased Rakesh Kumar Rawat. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that this incident occurred due to accident. Next submission is that the complainant also filed counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that nobody has seen the incident. The deceased had received firearm injury accidentally, due to his own negligence while flaunting the pistol. It has also been admitted in the counter affidavit that alleged accused appellants had brought the deceased at Trauma Centre, Medical College Lucknow to save the life of the deceased. It is also submitted that the deceased was close friend of appellant and other co-accused persons. Further submission is that no motive was assigned against the appellants. Learned counsel for appellant has further submitted that confessional statement of appellant was recorded by the police during investigation but no such statement was given by the appellant before the police and confessional statement before the police is not admissible in evidence, hence confessional statement has no value at all. The applicants are in jail since 22.11.2020. The applicants have no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that if the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse liberty of bail and are ready to co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence the applicants are not entitled for bail and the bail applications are liable to be rejected.
After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I fine that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellants/applicants.
Impugned orders dated 25.03.2021 and 22.03.2021 are hereby set aside.
The aforesaid appeals are hereby allowed.
Let appellants (Vinay Kumar Yadav, Gyanendra Kumar & Mohd. Aftab Alam) be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in 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 applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.
(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the applicants misus the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.6.2021
Virendra
