Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93686
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47462 of 2022
Applicant :- Mahesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Vinay Kumar Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard S/Sri Rakesh Pathak and Vinay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 73 of 2022 under Sections 302, 307, 201, 34 I.P.C. and 25 (9)/30 Arms Act, Police Station- Rajapur, District - Chitrakoot.
3. The applicant before this Court is facing trial for offence of murder caused in celebratory firing. In occurrence, two persons died.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been assigned double barrel licensed gun, however, during trial where 9 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. None of witnesses has recognized applicant to be a person who alleged for celebrating firing in marriage party. Even the nature of fire-arm injury does not corroborate with weapon assigned with applicant i.e. double barrel gun.
5. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, learned Trial Court has submitted a report dated 18.05.2023, that out of 36 proposed witnesses, 10 have already been examined till the referred date.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the bail that it is a case of celebratory firing which led to death of two persons. Trial is proceeded and out of proposed 36 witnesses, 10 witnesses have already been examined. Considering nature of allegation and manner of occurrence, applicant who is in jail since 05.05.2022 i.e. just more than two years may not be released on bail.
7. The Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in case of Shahid Ali Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 259 has discourage the act of celebratory firing and criticized the act of celebrating firing and observed that, "the act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremony is an unfortunate yet prevalent in our nation. The present case is direct example of disastrous consequences of such uncontrolled and unwarranted celebratory firing."
8. In the present case, on basis of defence persons of applicant at place of marriage is fixed. It is also not much denied that applicant was carrying a licensed double barrel gun, however, the Court takes note nature of evidence before Trial Court, wherein some of witnesses have stated that they have not witnessed that applicant was firing.
9. The Court also takes note that trial is substantially progressed and at this stage, there is no likelihood that applicant may influence any witness. The Court also takes note that in Shahid Ali (supra), the Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances, has modified the conviction in a case of celebratory firing under Section 302 I.P.C. to an offence under Section 304-II I.P.C. and for reference paragraph Nos. 16, 17, of Shahid Ali (supra) being relevant are mentioned hereinafter :-
"16. There can be no qualm about the fact that the Appellant opened fire in a crowded place i.e., a marriage ceremony without taking reasonable measures for safety, which led to the unfortunate demise of the Deceased.
17. In this context, keeping in view the totality of circumstances of the case i.e., especially the fact that (i) there was no previous enmity between the Deceased; (ii) no intention may be attributed to the Appellant as may be culled out from the record to cause death of the Deceased; and (iii) position of law enunciated by this Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Supra) and subsequently, followed in Bhagwan Singh (Supra), we find that the Appellant is guilty of commission of 'culpable homicide' within the meaning of Section 299 IPC i.e., punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."
10. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
11. Trial Court will take all endeavour to expedite the trial.
12. Let the applicant- Mahesh 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.
13. 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.
14. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
P. Pandey
