In a bail application, the court noted the dispute was a family property matter between cousins. Finding no likelihood of tampering with evidence and considering the period of detention, the court enlarged the applicant on bail subject to standard conditions.
The applicant is directed to be released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11892 of 2018
Applicant :- Girdhari Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate G.S. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratibha Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was released on bail already under certain sections but subsequently certain other sections were added in which his bail has been rejected. Further submission is that it is a case of family dispute between the cousins with regard to distribution of the property. It has been submitted that actually the applicant is a tax payer and is a very well to do person and it was over a dispute with regard to distribution of property and assets of the factories that the said incident took place. Counsel has gone to the extent of arguing that essentially this is a civil dispute but out of gross misunderstanding the same snow balled and assumed a different complexion. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history and the earlier bail granted to him was never subjected to any misuse. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 19.03.2018 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. Counsel for the complainant has been fair enough not to dispute that it is a
family dispute with regard to distribution of the property and assets of the factories.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant-Girdhari Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.209 of 2010, u/s 406, 395, 397 I.P.C., P.S.Mungarabadshahpur, District-Jaunpur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 17.5.2018 M. Kumar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant, already released on bail under some charges but now facing additional charges in a family property dispute, should be enlarged on bail.
Girdhari Yadav
State Of U.P.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
