Court rejected a third bail application by applicant Ram Kumar Yadav in a murder case. Despite alleged co-accused bail, hostile witnesses, and parity claims, court found no fit case for bail considering complicity and severity of punishment.
Third bail application rejected.
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. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18598 of 2018
Applicant :- Ram Kumar Yadav @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rachna Dubey,Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadh Bihari Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
This is third bail application of applicant after rejection of his first and second bail application nos.21417 of 2015 and 44707 of 2015 vide orders dated 16.6.2015 & 27.5.2016 respectively, on merits.
Heard Sri Saurabh Pathak, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for widow of victim, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that after rejection of two bail applications on merits, co-accused Surendra Yadav has been granted bail vide order dated 20.9.2018 passed by another Bench in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18431 of 2018, copy at R.A.-2; that first informant-P.W.-1 has turned hostile in his cross examination and P.W.-2 has also not supported the prosecution case and was turned hostile; that role assigned to co-accused Surendra Yadav and applicant was identical and similar so the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 9 of rejoinder affidavit; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 4.4.2015.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for widow of victim (who died in the incident) vehemently opposed prayer of bail and contended that applicant and accused are influential persons who have tampered the investigation itself as has been mentioned by Court in earlier orders; that during trial P.W.-1 was examined on 19.9.2017 and his cross examination was got adjourned from the side of accused and after winning him over his cross examination was completed after a period of 10 months and similarly P.W.-2 was also won over; that P.W.-1 first informant has fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief; that even by remaining inside prison, applicant is tampering with prosecution evidence and if released on bail shall misuse liberty of bail and delay and defraud the trial; that trial is in progress in compliance with order dated 2.4.2019 passed by Apex Court (S.A.-1) wherein Apex Court
has directed for expeditious disposal of trial within three months; that in these circumstances there is every likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The third bail application of applicant Ram Kumar Yadav @ Kallu in Case Crime No.208 of 2015, under Sections 302, 394, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Soraon, District Allahabad is rejected accordingly.
Order Date :- 10.5.2019
Kpy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering complicity, severity of punishment and delays in prosecution evidence examination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kumar Yadav @ Kallu
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
