Allahabad High Court
Sarvjeet Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14824 of 2023
Applicant :- Sarvjeet Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The Crl. Misc. First bail application No. 15628 of 2013 was rejected by Hon. Virendra Vikram Singh, J. vide order dated 6.6.2013 and second bail application No. 27219 of 2013 was rejected by Hon. Virendra Vikram Singh, J. vide order dated 27.05.2014 and third bail application No. 40010 of 2016 was rejected by Hon. Vipin Sinha, J, vide order dated 19.05.2017.
This is fourth bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sarvjeet Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 762 of 012, under sections 147, 148, 302 IPC, P.S. Gauri Bazar, District Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against hm and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. The P.W. 1 who is informant of the case, in his Chief examination stated that he was not seen the incident and after getting the information about the incident reached on the spot. P.W. 3 Dinesh Prasad has given the false and contradictory statement, P.W. 4 Vashitha Pandey and P.W. 5 Ram Kripal have not supported the prosecution case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the I.O. without conducting the proper investigation has illegally submitted charge sheet against the applicant and five other co-accused persons. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.08.2012 having no criminal history.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Sarvjeet Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iv) 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.
(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
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 :- 3.4.2023
RPD
