Allahabad High Court
Umesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14752 of 2023
Applicant :- Umesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Markandey Singh, learned Brief Holder of State.
2. Applicant-Umesh Yadav has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 786 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Deoria, District Deoria, after rejection of his bail application vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Deoria.
3. In the present case there are six named accused, who are facing trial for offence aforesaid. It has been brought on record that four similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court. However, learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that reasons given in bail orders may not be in conformity with the judgments 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.
4. Prosecution version is extracted from an order passed by Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16342 of 2023 that on 10.10.2022 some altercation has taken place between deceased Abhay Yadav and his wife and deceased has left home on his motorcycle but thereafter, he was not traceable. On 14.10.2022, a missing report was lodged. The first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that some drivers were having enmity with the deceased and that Israil Ansari, Nagendra Singh, Umesh Yadav, Ram Pyare Nishad, Omprakash Sahni @ Guddu Sahni (applicant) and Rajesh Yadav have committed murder of deceased.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that initially a missing report was lodged on 14.10.2022. Later on a suspicion was made against all accused persons in FIR lodged on 16.10.2022. On the same day all accused persons were arrested and on their pointing out not only dead body of deceased but motorcycle of deceased was also recovered. According to post mortem report immediate cause of death was not ascertained, therefore, Viscera was preserved, however, till date its report is not on record. Learned counsel further submits that motive assigned to applicant does not corroborate from evidence collected during investigation. There is no eye witness of alleged incident, there is no last seen witness and chain of circumstances are also not complete.
6. Learned Brief Holder appearing for State submits that dead body and motorcycle of deceased was recovered on pointing out of all accused persons. There are statement of witnesses that deceased, a driver, had enmity with accused persons, who are also drivers, for transaction of certain money.
7. As referred above, out of six named accused, four have already been granted bail. There is merit in the argument of learned counsel for applicant that memo of recovery does not appear to be in conformity with judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396. Motive assigned to applicant and other co-accused does not support by any credible evidence and chain of circumstances also prima facie do not complete. Also taking note that four similarly situated co-accused have already been granted bail, applicant, who is in jail since 16.10.2022, is entitled for bail.
8. However, applicant is directed to remain present on each and every date as and when required by Trial Court during trial and in case any application for exemption on vague ground is filed, the same shall be a ground for Trial Court to cancel bail immediately.
9. Let the applicant-Umesh 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.
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.
12. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 2.5.2023
AK
