The High Court rejected the bail application admitted by Tarbabu Yadav @ Dayaram Yadav under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act, citing his long criminal history, antiquities, and nature of offences as sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Prayer for bail rejected; applicant not enlarged on bail.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12143 of 2019
Applicant :- Tarbabu Yadav @ Dayaram Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyajuddin Ansari,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Narayan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Tarbabu Yadav @ Dayaram Yadav in Case Crime No.07 of 2019 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Bankata, District-Deoria.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further submitted that four cases have been shown in the gang chart in which applicant is on bail and except these 30 cases are also against the applicant, out of which in some cases, applicant has been acquitted, in some cases, he was not wanted and in rest cases, he is on bail. It is next submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.11.2018. In case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the court that the applicant is having
a long criminal history of 30 criminal cases which have already been registered against the applicant in which some cases are related to under section 302 IPC and some cases are related to under section 307 IPC. The details of the criminal history was also taken into account by the court below which reads as thus:-
147, 352, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC Police Station Bankata, District Deoria, applicant is on bail.
Further submission of learned AGA is that the chequered history or the criminal antecedents are sufficient to indicate that the applicant is a habitual offender and in case he is released on bail, under the coercive influence of his criminality it will be difficult for the witnesses to depose independently without fear. It is further submitted that in all likelihood the release of the accused shall impair the prospects of a fair trial. It is next submitted that it is also very obvious that the person of this criminal background will also indulge himself in the activities which shall be detrimental to the society at large. Further
submission is that the delinquents of such nature wield enormous criminal clout which in consequence very obviously affects a free trial. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused should not be released on bail. Learned AGA also relied upon the Apex Court decision Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. In Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 decided on 29.9.2015 to emphasize upon the relevance of criminal history in matters of bail.
Submission of the A.G.A. is that the perusal of aforesaid case law reveals that a very strict view against the accused on the point of bail has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason of his having a shady past which was blemished with criminal antecedents.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case and specially keeping in view the long criminal history of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
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 :- 22.7.2019
Pr/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering his long criminal history and nature of offences.
Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents make him a habitual offender unfit for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶42
Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. In Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015 decided on 29.9.2015
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tarbabu Yadav @ Dayaram Yadav
State Of U.P.
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
