Uma Shankar Yadav @ Tanke vs State Of Up
2025 Latest Caselaw 695 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Uma Shankar Yadav @ Tanke vs State Of Up on 8 May, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


       					   Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74716                
 
Reserved On:- 05.05.2025  
 
  Delivered On:- 08.05.2025  
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28837 of 2024 
 
Applicant :- Uma Shankar Yadav @ Tanke 
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. 
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh 
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 
 
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
 

1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. This is second bail application of the applicant.

3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court on 30.09.2022 which is available now.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2020 and has been implicated in 3 cases after implication in the present case. The merits of the case were considered in the first bail application which was rejected.

5. Keeping in view the delay in trial the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses but they have not named the applicant nor attributed him any specific role in the incident.

6. Learned A.G.A has filed counter affidavit on behalf of State and has submitted that name of applicant came to the light during investigation. He has submitted that the applicant was also found to be involved in the alleged offence and hence he was charge sheeted by the police. He has submitted that it is a case of gruesome murder of 8 persons. He has also submitted that trial will conclude soon and therefore, there is no justification for enlargement of applicant on bail.

7. After hearing the rival submissions and material on record, this court finds that there are 102 prosecution witnesses and only 13 of them have been examined before the trial court. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R nor he had any previous criminal history. He has been subsequently implicated in three cases.

8. Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

10. Let the applicant, Uma Shankar Yadav @ Tanke, involved in Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 333, 307, 302, 396, 412, 120-B, 34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 C.L.A. Act and Section ¾ of Explosive Substance Act, Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Kanpur Nagar, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(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 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.

(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.

11. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 08.05.2025

Rohit