Allahabad High Court
Satya Prakash Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 3244 of 2021
Applicant :- Satya Prakash Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, learned A.G.A. for the State Ms. Nikita Mishra, Advocate and perused the record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Satya Prakash Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.544 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of accused-applicant by learned Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 20.01.2021. A copy of bail application has already been received in the office of learned G.A., pursuant thereto, learned A.G.A. for the State is present to protest the bail-application. Instructions is received to her and she is possessed with the relevant papers available on case diary of the case.
Learned counsel for the applicant reading over the first information report and statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of the victim of incident submitted that there is a dispute as to the landed property and the interested opposite parties alongiwth their ten unknown companions, assaulted upon the complainant and his family members when the complainant's wife was working in the field (the disputed land). When she opposed, she was beaten and even the accused-applicant, Gyanendra Pandey attempted to commit rape upon her and on her cry to rescue, her husband rashed on the spot, he was also beaten when people from the neighbouring localities arrived to rescue them, the Gyanendra Pandey fled away making a fire upon the victim and one villager-Sonu, both of them were injured and admitted to hospital.
Learned counsel further submitted that the victim-Sonu and another victim-the complainant of the case herself stated to the police about the role of Gyanendra Pandey of firing upon them, till then, the name of present accused-applicant has not came into light. However, when the police collected more evidences by recording statement of independent witness one Akhilesh Kumar, whose statement is at annexure no.7 to the bail-application and Ashutosh Tripathi, whose statement is at annexure no.6, they for the first time stated that both the families i.e. the family of Gyanendra Pratap and the family of the complainant were in a dispute with regard to the land in question, the field where the incident happened and a case earlier to the present accused-applicant has also been registered in criminal side against the said Gyanendra Pratap but so far as the present incident is concerned, both the persons have tried to give a clean chit to the accused-applicant named in the first information report of the complainant with regard to the present incident and stated that one Satya Prakash Yadav to whom the disputed field was handed over for ploughing by the family of Gyanendra Pratap, was the person who approached to plough the field with the incident in question and firing is also made by him only.
Peculiarly enough, learned counsel submitted that the police has disbelieved the statement of two victims of the incident who are placed under the criminal law at higher pedestal i.e. eye witnesses, injured witnesses and believing upon the witness persons at the time of incident is not certain and this is a matter of proof whether they are telling truth or not.
Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the accused-applicant who is a local resident and not concerned with the offence at all, be released on bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court, as he is ready and willing to participate in the trial so as to defend himself efficaciously and properly.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand protesting the bail-application on the basis of fact that two witnesses have stated about the role of present accused-applicant and the police on the basis of their statement has dropped out the name of accused-applicant in the charge sheet and the charge sheet has already been submitted.
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.
Let applicant (Satya Prakash Yadav) involved in Case Crime No.544 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Akbarpur, 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 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 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 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.
Order Date :- 17.3.2021
Saurabh
