Allahabad High Court
Pramod Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5076 of 2023
Applicant :- Pramod Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Mohd Imdad Siddiqui,Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for applicant and Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for informant.
Applicant- Pramod Yadav, has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.322 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 342, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Phulpur, District - Azamgarh after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.
In the present case, F.I.R. was lodged against seven named accused and some unknown persons, alleging that five named accused have intercepted the persons of complainant side and assaulted them which resulted into death of one person. Applicant was not shown to be present at place of occurrence and it was alleged that he was part of hatching a conspiracy. Enmity is also shown that there was prior incident where F.I.R. has been lodged from both sides.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is a case of prosecution that applicant was not present during actual occurrence and was alleged to be a part of hatching a conspiracy, however, prosecution has not collected a single evidence that applicant has participated in alleged conspiracy. Learned counsel also placed bail orders passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vishal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.(bail application No.11473 of 2023) and Sanjay Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (bail application No.17494 of 2023) who were alleged of assailants and there is a delay of three days in lodging F.I.R. also. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is behind the bar since 09.12.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail, however, it is not in dispute that according to prosecution case, applicant was not present at place of occurrence but he was part of hatching a conspiracy. Learned A.G.A. further submits that order granting bail to co-accused by co-ordinate Bench of this Court is not accompanied with reasons as required in terms of judgments of Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501 and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497, therefore, applicant may not be released on bail.
LAW ON BAIL - A SUMMARY
(A) The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.
(B) Power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is of wide amplitude but not an unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course or in whimsical manner.
(C) While passing an order on an application for grant of bail, there is no need to record elaborate details to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal. However, a Court cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as allegations made against accused; nature and gravity of accusation; having common object or intention; severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced by accused; tampering of evidence; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; the frivolity in the case of prosecution; criminal antecedents of accused and a prima facie satisfaction of Court in support of charge against accused. The Court may also take note of participation or part of an unlawful assembly as well as that circumstantial evidence not being a ground to grant bail, if the evidence/ material collected establishes prima facie a complete chain of events. Parity may not be an only ground but remains a relevant factor for consideration of application for bail.
(D) Over crowding of jail and gross delay in disposal of cases when undertrials are forced to remain in jail (not due to their fault) may give rise to possible situations that may justify invocation of Article 21 of Constitution, may also be considered along with other factors.
(See, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447 : 1978 SCR (1) 535; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118); State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr :2022 SCC OnLine SC 458; Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501; and, Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559)
In the present case, considering the above referred submission and material on record, it appears that applicant was not present at place of occurrence and allegedly he was part of hatching a conspiracy, however, there is substance in argument of learned counsel for applicant that nature of evidence in regard to conspiracy does not appear to be cogent, though allegation of prior enmity appears to be exist.
Considering that other two co-accused who was allegedly present during occurrence have already been granted bail, though reasons given in bail orders may not be approved in terms of judgement passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2022)3 SCC 501 and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497.
Considering the specific role of applicant is limited i.e. part of hatching a conspiracy and not participating in actual crime as well as considering the evidence in regard to conspiracy which appears to be not cogent, therefore, applicant who is in jail since 09.12.2022 has made out a case of bail.
However, it is made clear that case of Adarsh Yadav @ Chotelal Yadav is on different footing.
Let the applicant- Pramod Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment or exemption from appearance on the date fixed in trial. 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 applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.
(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2023
P. Pandey
