Allahabad High Court
Vinod Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 26 October, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204420
Reserved On:-17.10.2023
Delivered On:-26.10.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41396 of 2023
Applicant :- Vinod Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vinod Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2023, under Sections 302, 307, 333, 353, 427, 34 of IPC and Section 3/5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Raipur, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of trial.
3. There is allegation in FIR lodged by head constable alleging that he was posted alongwith head constable, Satendra Kumar, at police chowki of Police Station- Raipur, District- Sonbhadra. On picket duty two vehicles came. They tried to stop the vehicles, but the vehicles were not stopped. Two persons were sitting in vehicles, they stated that don't stop the vehicle and crushed the policemen otherwise they will catch them. The vehicles dashed against the barriers and being loaded with bovine animals they vanished. The vehicles fled away and due to dashing against the barrier by the two vehicles, the barrier hit the head constable, Sandeep Kumar Singh, on his head and stomach. The informant suffered injury on his fingers of left hand. Subsequently, Head Constable, Sandeep Kumar Singh, died.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the basis of information given by informer, the applicant was implicated as the person who was driving one of the vehicle. One co-accused, Sanjay Kumar, was arrested on 15.06.2023 and in his confessional statement name of applicant surfaced. The other witnesses namely, Sadanand, Ramchandra, Lavkush, Balveer Gurjar and Satyendra Kumar took the name of co-accused, Khursheed. The deceased died on 15.06.2023 and confessional statement of the applicant was recorded belatedly on 18.06.2023 and vehicle allegedly used in crime was recovered on the pointing out of applicant. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that there was no mens rea on the part of applicant to commit alleged crime and except the information given by the informer, there is nothing against the applicant. The incident took place on 13.06.2023 and deceased died on 20.06.2023 due to septisematic shock resulting from lung infection and as a result of head injury. He has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. He has finally submitted that at the most it is a case under Section 304-A. He has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Haider Ali Kalu Bhai 1976(1) SCC 889 wherein in paragraphs 10 and 11, Apex Court held that offence under Section 304-A IPC is only made out and not offence under Section 304 Part 2 IPC when speeding truck came in contact with the corner of the steel cot throwing it over the wooden cot and throwing the deceased out of it resulting in fatal injuries. The court held that there was no intention of the accused to commit deliberate act of culpable homicide. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 15.07.2023. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in near future.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has 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 deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) 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 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.
7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :-26.10.2023
Abhishek
