Pradeep Yadav vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6796 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54239 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi,Ashutosh Mishra,Sheetla Prasad Gound
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Pradeep Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 392 of 2022, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

As per the prosecution case in brief, informant, who is brother of the deceased lodged an FIR on 24.08.2022 against the present applicant-Pradeep Yadav, Avaneesh and Rahul with the allegation inter-alia that his brother Sukhveer was unmarried and was working on Amarsarai feedar. On 22.08.2022, his night duty was in Amarsarai feedar. Then he got information from his cousin-Rajesh that his brother has died. On the said information, he came to his village from Ludhiana and came to know that in the night of 20/21.08.2022, the applicant-Pradeep who is his cousin was stayed along with his brother at feeder. On 22.08.2022, co-accused Avaneesh was on duty but he changed his duty with Sukhveer. Rahul was also working at feedar. Since Avaneesh was inimical to his brother, therefore, he suspect that Pradeep Yadav, Avaneesh and Rahul strangled his brother to death.

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no eye witness of the incident. FIR has been lodged by the informant on the basis of suspicion. Informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reiterated the FIR version. During investigation, statement of Avaneesh was recorded on 29.08.2022, in which he stated that on 22.08.2022, Sukhveer told him that he want to go out somewhere, that's why he will do night duty today and requested him to do his duty tomorrow. Rahul in his statement dated 22.08.2022 stated that he did his duty on 21.08.2022 from 06:00 am to 06.30 pm, thereafter Sukhveer did his duty till 09.00 am of 22.08.2022. The applicant-Pradeep and Seema were interrogated on 02.09.2022 and 03.09.2022 respectively and it is the case of the prosecution that applicant and Seema before the investigating officer, has elicited the truth in the matter disclosing inter-alia that the applicant wanted to get the marriage of Seema solemnized with the Sukhveer (deceased) and Seema also pretended to Sukhveer that she loved him whereas she was having illicit relation with Shubhash, therefore, they suspect that Suubhash might have got killed Sukhveer. It is next submitted that apart from this, it is also the prosecution case that on 12.09.2022, statement of Rajesh was recorded in which he stated inter-alia that in the night of 20/21.08.2022, he had seen the present applicant along with Seema and Shubhash. Prosecution has also set up a case that on 27.09.2022 confessional statement of Seema and Shubhash has been recorded in which they have admitted their guilt by stating inter-alia that they along with applicant-Pradeep killed Sukhveer by strangling him with a rope. It is also pointed out that named co-accused Avaneesh and Rahul have been exonerated by the investigating officer on the basis of their own statement. On the strength of aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that except the confessional statement of co-accused Seema and Shubhash as well as last seen evidence on the basis of statement of Rajesh, there is no corroborative credible material against the applicant. There is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the applicant. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indrajit Das vs. The State of Tripura, decided on 28.02.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2015, submits that the chain of link evidences are missing in this case and the confessional statement given before the investigating officer is a very weak evidence, therefore, applicant who is languishing in jail since 27.09.2022 having no criminal history is entitled to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the light of first information report as well as by contending that as per CDR of mobile numbers of the deceased, it was revealed that several time telephonic conversation was done between the applicant, Seema and Sukhveer. On the day of incident, applicant had talk with the deceased. Locations of mobile of the applicant, Seema and Shubhash were found at the same place of incident on 20.08.2022 and 21.08.2022.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no eye witness of the incident. The prosecution case against the applicant is mainly based on confessional statement and evidence of last seen of Rajesh. There is no direct evidence against the present applicant and his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Seema and Shubhash.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as noted above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

Let the applicant-Pradeep 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

(ii) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 2.3.2023

Saurabh