Allahabad High Court
Devanand Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15864 of 2022
Applicant :- Devanand Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri S.S. Sachan, Advocate are present in the Court.
The present bail-application is moved on behalf of the accused-applicant, Devanand Yadav, arraigned in Case Crime No.82 of 2022, under Sections 307 and 436 of the I.P.C., registered at Police Station Atrauliya, District Azamgarh.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail application of accused-applicant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh vide order dated 25.03.2022.
The written information whereupon the first information report is lodged states only as to some oral altercation with the accused-applicant and the complainant, a shop owner, which is installed at road side patri. It is further stated by the complainant that the accused-applicant threatened to further consequences and pursuant thereto in the night of next day, the shop was set into fire, by reason of which, the chairs and tables (total six in numbers) were burnt and anyhow the shop owner (complainant) succeeded in saving his life by fleeing away from the spot of the incident.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of complainant, wherein, in very clear and unambiguous words, it is stated that at the time of the incident, no one was present near the shop so as to witness the incident of mischief by fire. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is not alleged in the written information or anywhere in the course of investigation that the place of incident was used as a place of abode by the complainant, therefore, possibility of his remaining present in the shop in the night is quite impossible.
Learned counsel for the bail applicant has submitted in para 9 of the affidavit in support of the bail application that there is no enmity of any kind between the first informant and the complainant nor any hot talks have been exchanged between them. He linked the incident as a result of party bandi in the village under the influence of village pradhan and the fact of hutment where the shop was being run by the complainant, caught fire by accident, was by way of manipulation and collusion with the village pradhan, converted into the case of mischief of fire and attempt to murder against the accused-applicant.
No further argument is done by the learned counsel in this regard except that the accused-applicant has no previous criminal history or involvement in any criminal case and mischief, he is a common man, is ready and willing to face the trial to defend himself. He prays on the bail prayer to release the accused-applicant on the terms and conditions imposed by the Court.
Learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State informs the Court that he has received all the relevant papers and materials alongwith the instructions and on the basis of which, he submitted that the mischief was done by fire in the shop run by the complainant on road side patri and the same is corroborated with the site map prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is also clear from the argument of learned A.G.A. that there was no person as an eyewitness or an independent witness of the incident so as to identify exclusively and solely as responsible person for committing the mischief by fire to the present accused-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 it is 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 (Devanand Yadav), involved in Case Crime No.82 of 2022, under Sections 307 and 436 of the I.P.C., registered at Police Station Atrauliya, District Azamgarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- 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 if 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 :- 9.5.2022
Saurabh
