Yashpal @ Teetu vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 19149 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Yashpal @ Teetu vs State Of U.P. on 27 May, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95558
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28320 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Yashpal @ Teetu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiresh Kumar,Sudhanshu Singh,Vivek Gangwar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Saxena
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Vipin Gangwar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vivek Gangwar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for informant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, 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. 141 of 2023 under Sections 457, 306, 307, 354 (D), 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Nawabganj, District - Bareilly.

3. Applicant before this Court is facing trial for offence of abetment of suicide, attempt to murder and of stalking.

4. According to prosecution story, the applicant has allegedly committed murder of deceased, a married woman. It was alleged that applicant used to have indecent talk with deceased and for that he was scolded and thus having an animosity with complainant side. On day of occurrence, applicant and two unknown persons hide inside the house of complainant and later on assaulted Munendra Pal i.e. informant and husband of deceased and it was alleged that they took away deceased and that later on deceased was found dead at Railway line.

5. Learned counsel submits that after investigation, so far as allegation of assaulting husband of deceased were found to be true, however, that applicant has committed murder of deceased was found false and it was revealed that deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of train. Learned counsel further submits that during investigation, Investigating Officer, after recording statements of Gateman, Driver of train, came to a conclusion that it was a case of suicide and not a murder as such investigation was fair, however, he further submits that so far as allegation that applicant has illicit relationship with deceased and he has committed offence of abetment of suicide is false and no evidence in this regard was collected during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that other allegation of causing injuries to husband of deceased are also false.

6. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise case may fall in first part of Section 307 I.P.C., which is punishable for a term which may extend to ten years. Applicant is in jail since 22.03.2023 and trial has still not commenced and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

7. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. for State. He submits that applicant used to indecent talk with deceased which was opposed by complainant side. Their alleged relationship was revealed and due to avoid social disgrace, victim committed suicide. The injuries of injured was examined promptly though status of trial has not been denied.

8. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e 'bail is rule and jail is exception' as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), Ramayan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 563, therefore, I am of considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following grounds:-

(a) The prosecution story that applicant has committed murder of deceased was found absolutely false as on basis of statements of driver of train and Gateman that it was revealed that deceased came in front of train and got crushed;

(b) The Court takes note the nature of evidence collected during investigation qua to abetment of suicide. In this regard, the Court also takes note of judgment passed by this Court in Ravnidra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P., 2021:AHC:172280;

(c) The Court also takes note that nature of evidence that applicant has assaulted husband of deceased as well as that injured was promptly examined. In this regard, the Court takes note of submission that in case of conviction, it may be a case where sentence could be awarded up to ten years;

(d) The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2023 i.e. just more than one year, however, trial has not much proceeded.

(e) The Court also takes note an observation made in the case-diary about C.C.T.V. footage wherein deceased was running alone.

9. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

10. Trial Court will take all endeavour to expedite the trial.

11. Let the applicant- Yashpal @ Teetu 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.

12. 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.

13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

Order Date :- 27.5.2024

P. Pandey