Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Yadav @ Gutti vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 22 November, 2024
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77648
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2383 of 2024
Appellant :- Ram Kumar Yadav @ Gutti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Dubey,Ashish Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jay Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2253 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 165 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Badosaray, District Barabanki.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the co-accused, Renu in relation to the killing of her husband. However, later on, on the influence of co-villagers, Renu herself has been made accused in the case and charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer merely on the basis of hearsay evidences against Renu as well as the appellant. However, there is no evidence against the appellant. It is also submitted that 5 witnesses of fact have already been examined.
Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the statement of the co-accused, Renu under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is a type of confessional statement was also recorded, wherein she stated that she was having illicit relations with appellant-Ram Kumar Yadav @ Gutti, co-villager. As she was being beaten by her husband, she reported the same to the appellant on phone and thereafter, on the date of incident, according to the plan, she convinced her husband to go outside for making some correction in Aadhar Card at 8.30 p.m., where he met to the appellant and they sit in his car No. UP 32 MF 3497 and thereafter he was killed by strangulation. It is vehemently submitted that call detail was not collected by the Investigating Officer and merely on the basis of presumption, charge sheet was filed. It is lastly submitted that 5 witnesses of fact have already been examined, out of total 21 witnesses and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near further. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that co-accused, Renu has already been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 12817 of 2023. It is, thus, submitted that the appellant, who has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 22.06.2023, is entitled for bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that court below has rightly rejected the bail, therefore, the present bail is liable to be dismissed. However, he does not dispute the fact that co-accused Renu has already been granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 12817 of 2023 (annexed as Annexure No. 19).
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the lower court record as well as the judgment of the court below dated 23.07.2024, it is evident that the name of the appellant came in the confessional statement of the co-accused-Renu, who has already been granted bail. In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
6. Impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2253 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 165 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Badosaray, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside.
7. Let appellant, Ram Kumar Yadav @ Gutti be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R. No. 165 of 2023 on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.
Order Date :- 22.11.2024
VKS
