Allahabad High Court
Prakash Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- BAIL No. - 7101 of 2020
Applicant :- Prakash Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Singh,Ajai Rajpoot,Avinash Chowdhary,Shanker Lal Verma,Vijay Rajput
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
Called on.
Heard learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Atul Verma, Advocate, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Sri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate and perused the material available on record.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicant-Prakash Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.94/2018, under Sections 302, 307, 342, 352, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Para, District- Lucknow.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow vide order dated 31.7.2020. Copy of the bail application has already been received in the office of learned Government Advocate. Pursuant thereto, learned AGA is present to protest the bail plea.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicant, reading over the First Information Report, submitted that it is alleged that the present accused-applicant alongwith other accused apprehended the deceased at the time of festival of Holi and started indiscriminate firing which resulted into death of the deceased, Anil Yadav while two persons viz; Pintu Yadav and Babloo Yadav got injured in the incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, the bullet from firearm used by the applicant has merely caused injury to the injured but it has not caused the death of the deceased. This fact is substantiated by the statement of two injured, namely, Pintoo Yadav and Babloo Yadav, who categorically stated that the fatal injury was not caused by firearm, used in the incident, by the present accused-applicant. According to injury report of both the injured, the injuries were caused on the shoulder of one of the injured and on skull of other injured which may travel upto the offence under Section 307 IPC. As per postmortem report of the deceased, single injury was found on his body which also substantiates the fact that the applicant has not caused fatal injury to the deceased but has merely caused injury to the injured.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 16.7.2020. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the accused-applicant of fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on the premise that the applicant has caused serious injuries to the injured in the entire incident and was one of the participant in the commission of crime.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submits that equally circumstanced co-accused Putan Yadav and Satish Yadav @ Satish Singh Yadav, who were assigned the similar role to that of present accused-applicant, have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 11.06.2020 and 01.04.2019 passed in Bail Nos. 3022 of 2019 and Bail No. 8824 of 2018 respectively. Therefore, the present bail-applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts, as stated by learned counsel for the bail-applicant.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicant accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Prakash Yadav), involved in Case Crime No.94/2018, under Sections 302, 307, 342, 352, 506 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Para, District- Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond worth Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) 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 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 :- 25.3.2021
Gaurav/-
