Pappu Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 23748 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174548
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35485 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Pappu Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
And
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37033 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Chakrapal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Geetam Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Pappu Yadav, Mr. Ajay Kumar Vashistha, the learned counsel for applicant-Chakrapal and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the Court.

3. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants-Pappu Yadav and Chakrapal seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahwar, District- Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred in between 12.03.2023 to 13.03.2023, a prompt F.I.R. dated 13.03.2023, was lodged by first informant-Hari Om and was registered as Case Crime No. 79 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Sahwar, District- Kasganj. In the aforesaid F. I.R., five persons namely Nepal, Sahab Singh, Kahari Singh Chakrapal (applicant herein) and Brijesh have been nominated as named accused whereas two unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused came to the house of first informant and requested the father of the first informant to accompany them. Subsequently, the dead body of the father of the first informant was recovered. It was on the basis of alleged criminality, the F.I.R. lodged against named accused. The F.I.R. also records that enmity exits with the named accused regarding agricultural land.

6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was registered, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforesaid case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Ultimately, post-mortem of the body of deceased Shiv Singh was conducted. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased cause of death of deceased was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The Autopsy Surgeon found following ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased:

I. Traumatic swelling near left parietal region size 4 cm x 3 cm, 5 cm above the left ear

II. Traumatic swelling over lt. side of face size 11 cm x 1 cm.

III. Multiple abraded contusion over anterior aspect of neck in area 6 cm x 5 cm below from chin largest contused abrasion 3 cm x 0.5 cm and smallest 0.5 x 0.5 cm.

IV. Contusion over left forearm size 6 cm x 2 cm 6 cm below from umbilical fossa.

V. Contusion over right forearm size 3 cm x 2 cm 8cm above the wrist joint.

VI. Contusion over left thigh size 7 cm x 1 cm, 13 cm above from left knee joint.

VII. Contusion of sioze 6cm x 2 cm with left thigh 5 cm above left knee joint.

VIII. Contusion of size 8 cm x 1 cm on the right thigh 16 cm above right knee joint.

IX. Contusion of size 8 cm x 1 cm on the right thigh 2 cm below from injury no. 8.

X. Contusion of size 10 cm x 2 cm on the right though 3 cm above from right knee joint.

XI. Lacerated wound of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the anterior aspect of right leg 4 cm below from knee joint.

XIILacerated wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm on the anterior aspect of right leg 12 cm below from right knee joint.

XIII. Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the right leg 6 cm above right ankle joint underlying bone fracture.

XIV. Abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right leg 6 cm. above right ankle joint.

XV. Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm on the left leg 11 cm below from left knee joint underlying bone fracture.

7. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above, he arrested named accused on different dates. Complicity of four other persons namely Ramchandra, Pappu Yadav, Rajpal Yadav and Brijendra also came to surface during the course of investigation. Subsequently, they were also arrested. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 23.05.2023 against named accused and not named accused. However implication of one of named accused i.e. Sahab Singh was found to be false therefore he was exculpated.

8. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicants submits that named accused Kehari Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32559 of 2023 (Kehari Singh Maurya Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 26.07.2023 is reproduced herein under:

"1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the first informant, who has filed his vakalatnama today in Court which is taken on record, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Kehari Singh Maurya, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 79 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C., registered at P.S. Sahawar, District Kasganj.

4. The First Information Report in the present matter was lodged on 13.3.2023 at 17:14 hours by Hariom naming the applicant- Kehari Singh Maurya and four other persons namely Nepal, Sahab Singh, Chakrapal, Brajesh and two unknown persons alleging therein that on 12.3.2023 around 7.00 p.m. his brother Deepu and his father Sriniwas along with Ramjilal were at their residence on which the accused persons came there on motorcycle and forcibly took his father Sriniwas and Ramjilal on the pretext of farming and panchayat and on the way they left Ramjilal but took his father. On 13.3.2023 dead body of his father was found in village-Banjara near canal. There has been a dispute with regards to land between his father and the said accused persons. The said accused persons have murdered his father.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the murder. It is further argued that common and general role of taking away of the deceased Sriniwas and Ramjilal has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant along with two unknown persons, after which on the way Ramjilal was left but the deceased was taken with them. It is argued that co-accused Sahab Singh has been exonerated by the police during investigation. It is further argued that there was dispute between co-accused Nepal Singh and the deceased with regards to land and the applicant has no motive to commit the aforesaid offence. It is argued that implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that the circumstances as alleged by the prosecution are incomplete. It is argued that co-accused Brijesh has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22760 of 2023, copy of said bail order is annexure no. 9 to the affidavit. Further it is argued that co-accused Rajpal Yadav has also been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30920 of 2023, copy of said bail order has been placed before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 30.3.2023.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant and four other co-accused persons along with two unknown persons took the father of the first informant who was found dead having as many as 15 injuries on his body. It is argued that as such the bail application of the applicant be rejected.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the present case is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the murder of the deceased. Common and general role has been assigned to all the named accused persons including the applicant and two unknown persons. One of the named accused persons Sahab Singh has been exonerated during investigation. Co-accused Brijesh and Rajpal Yadav have been granted bail.

8. Looking to 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.

9. Let the applicant- Kehari Singh Maurya, 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 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.

10. 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.

11. The bail application is allowed. "

9. Co accused Brijesh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22760 of 2023 (Brijesh Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 26.07.2023 is reproduced herein under:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. is that on 12.03.2023 at about 07:00 P.M. the informant, his brother Deepu, his father Shree Niwas, Ram and Ramleela were sitting at his temporary residence, in the meantime, the accused persons namely, Nepal Singh, Sahab Singh, Amar Singh, Kehri Singh Chakrapal and Brijesh (applicant) along with two unknown persons came and took his father and Ramji Lal on a Splendor motor cycle on pretext of agricultural panchayat and on the way, Ramji Lal was dropped whereas his father was taken away. On 13.03.2023, the dead body of his father was lying on the side of canal track and since agricultural dispute was going on with the accused dispute, thus his father has been murdered by them.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the applicant accompanied along with the accused persons and that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. He further submits that first information report has been registered against five named accused persons and two unknown persons but the co-accused Sahab Singh has been exonerated vide G.D. Parcha No.35. He next submits that there was a dispute between the co-accused Nepal Singh and the deceased with regard to 43 Bighas of land. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the first informant, who has categorically stated that in the evening of 12.03.2023, the accused with common intention to commit murder of his father had called him to the tubewell whereas, in the F.I.R. it has been stated that the deceased was taken away from his house which, itself belies the prosecution story. Learned counsel has next argued that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of the applicant, which is inadmissible evidence and that no motive has been assigned to the applicant. The only role assigned to the applicant that that he assisted in driving the vehicle as has been observed in the rejection order. Learned counsel has further argued that at the most the accused-Chakrapal as well as Nepal could be said to be involved in commission of alleged offence and that the accused Nepal has strong motive behind the alleged offence in which, the applicant has been falsely roped in the present therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 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. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2023 having no criminal history.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

5. 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.

6. Let applicant Brijesh involved in Case Crime No. 79 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201. 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sahawar, District Kasganj, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

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.

7. 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 in accordance with law.

8. The bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 "

10 Co accused Raj Pal Yadav has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30920 of 2023 (Rajpal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference the order dated 17.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

"By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2023 at Police Station-Sahawar, District-Kasganj under Section 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 14.04.2023.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 08.06.2023.

The following arguments made by Shri Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned counsel assisted by Shri Jasvant Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA for the State from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

(1). The applicant was not named in the FIR.

(2). The FIR identifies the principal offenders namely Nepal Singh, Sahab Singh, Kehri Singh, Chakrapal and Brijesh who forced the father of the first informant to accompany them on their motorcycle.

(3). The deceased had a running dispute with the persons named in the FIR.

(4). The applicant was nominated in the statement of the principal offender/co-accused while in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is not admissible in evidence.

(5). No incriminating article which can be connected with the offence was recovered from the applicant.

(6). The principal offender Brijesh has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 04.07.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22760 of 2023. The case of the applicant stands at a better footing but he seeks parity for grant in bail.

(7). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

(8). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant-Rajpal 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 "

11. Co accused Vijendra Yadav has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33067 of 2023 (Vijendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference the order dated 28.07.2023 is reproduced herein-under:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

The submission is that co-accuseds, Brijesh and Rajpal Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22760 and 30920 of 2023 on 4.7.2023 and 17.7.2023 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 9.4.2023.

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Vijendra Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 79 of 2023, under Sections 302,201,34 IPC, Police Station- Sahawar District- Kasganj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

4. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

5. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

6. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 "

12. Mr. Geetam Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Pappu Yadav contends that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His complicity is alleged to have emerged subsequently in the crime in question during the course of investigation. He contends that three of the named accused Kehari Singh, Brijesh and not named accused Vijendra Yadav and Rajpal Yadav have already been enlarged on bail. On the above premise, he contends that the case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of named and charge-sheeted but bailed out co-accused as noted above. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. On the basis of above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused as mentioned above, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Applicant Pappu Yadav is in custody since 25.4.2023. As such, he has under-gone more than four months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

13. Mr. Ajay Kumar Vashistha, the learned counsel for applicant Chakarpal submits that though the applicant is not named and charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. The case of present applicant is similar and identical to that of named/charge sheeted co-accused Kehar Singh and Brijesh, who have already been enlarged on bail. He also contends that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be so distinguished from the aforesaid bailed out co-accused so as to deny him bail. Applicant has criminal history of three cases. However, the same has been duly explained in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed today in Court. Applicant Chakarpal is in custody since 15.03.2023. As such, he has under-gone more than four months of incarceration. The police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised. However, upto this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. On the basis of above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused as mentioned above, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

14. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since the applicants are named/ no named as well as charge-sheet accused, therefore they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Criminality committed by named/charge sheeted accused as well as not named but charge sheeted accused is joint and common. As such, no exception can be carved out in the case of present applicant. Criminality committed by named accused is joint and common that the same cannot be separated or segregated. It is next contended that recovery of iron rod i.e. weapon of assault was recovered on the pointing out of not named accused/charge sheeted accused Pappu Yadav. As such case of present applicant is clearly distinguishable from other named/not named accused but bailed out co-accused. On the above premise, he submits that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicant-Pappu Yadav.

15. In rejoinder Mr. Geetam Singh, the learned counsel for applicant Pappu Yadav submits that it is true that recovery was made from the applicant. He however submits that recovery has been made on the pointing out of applicant from an open place and after expiry of a period of one month from the date of occurrence. There is no independent witness of the recovery. As such, same is implanted. Thus it is not a credible piece of evidence.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicants coupled with the fact that case of present applicant Pappu Yadav is similar and identical to not named but charge-sheeted accused Ramchardra, Rajpal and Brijesh. The case of applicant Chakapal is similar and identical to that of named and charged sheeted accused Kehar Singh and Brijesh who have already been enlarged on bail. Up to this stage no such distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. on the bais of which case of present applicant could so distinguished from aforementioned charge sheeted co-accused so as to deny them bail. Police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised, in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, present case is a case of circumstantial evidence therefore complicity of the applicants in the crime in question has to be judged in the light of parameters laid down by Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra reported AIR 1984 SC 1622, however, all the the parameters provided in aforesaid judgement are not fully satisfied against present applicants upto this stage, the period of incarceration undergone but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

17. Accordingly, present bail applications are allowed.

18. Let the applicants-Pappu Yadav and Chakarpal involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each 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) Applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

(ii) Applicants 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) Applicants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

(iv) Applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

19. 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 of applicants and send them to prison.

Order Date :- 29.8.2023

YK