Allahabad High Court
Vikas @ Vijay Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 14 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179517
Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43423 of 2023
Applicant :- Vikas @ Vijay Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Malviya,Nishant Dwivedi,Rishi Kesh Malviya,Vivek Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is languishing in jail for more than one year. Applicant is co-operating in the trial court proceedings. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the judgment of Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Criminal history of applicant has been explained in para-3 supplementary affidavit and para-8 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.D. UPadhyay (supra).
5. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.
6. It is not the case of the State that there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
7. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant(s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.
8. Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.
9. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.
10. No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.
11. No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail.
12. It is to be seen in the present case that there is some innocence in favour of the accused person, however, in the present case, first bail application was rejected. After rejection of the bail application only six prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is being adjourned by the trial court for presentation of prosecution witnesses. The Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422, has observed as under:
"So far as the cases regarding attempt to murder are concerned, we direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the under-trials shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Custom, Under Section 326 IPC, Under Section 324 IPC, Riots and Under Section 354 IPC who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall, be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases where the under-trial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may consider-keeping in view the facts of each case especially the period spent in jail-releasing them on bail by furnishing persons bonds."
As per Apex Court, in the cases of attempt to murder, applicant may be released on bail in which the trial is pending for more than two years.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant Vikas @ Vijay Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 249 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC, Police Station Nidhauli Kala, District Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. 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.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
viii. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on the date fixed and shall not seek any adjournment. In case, applicant absence himself from appearing before the court concerned, the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures including issuing warrant against the applicant for ensuring presence.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 14.11.2024
S.Prakash
