Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed granting bail to an applicant charged under IPC 302 against alleged murder of a deceased son of an informantья. Conditions imposed to prevent evidence tampering.
Release on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specified conditions.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18982 of 2019
Applicant :- Ashok @ Pappu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Pandey,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. for the State today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ashok @ Pappu Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Didarganj, DistrictAzamgarh , during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further argued that as per the prosecution version, the son of the informant, namely, Manoj @ Sonu, who works as salesman in alcohol shop, which is allotted in the name of one Jagram Yadav. On 12.01.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., Akash S/o Ravi Prakash informed the informant through telephone that Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) is not present in the shop. Therefore, he was searched and on 12.01.2019 at about 02:00 a.m. in the night, Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) was found in unconscious condition beside the alcohol shop and, thereafter, while he was being taken to hospital for treatment, he expired on the way, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. It is further argued that the present F.I.R. was lodged on 13.01.2019 at about 13:19 hrs. and on the same day, i.e. on 13.01.2019, the statement of the informant was recorded in which he has supported the prosecution version. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he is not involved in any way in the incident. For the first time, after nearly one month of the incident, i.e. on 13.02.2019, an application was moved before the Station House Officer concerned by the informant, who has suspected the involvement of Nilesh Yadav, Sani Yadav and Dipak Rajbhar in the murder of the deceased.
During the course of investigation, three persons, i.e. Nilesh Yadav, Shani Yadav and Dipak Rajbhar were arrested and in the statement of the co-accused-Nilesh Yadav before the Police, the name of the applicant has surfaced in which he has stated that he was told by the applicant that he had taken Rs. 50,000/- as debt from Manoj @ Sonu (deceased) and the deceased demanded money, therefore, they were asked by the applicant to murder him. It is further argued that since the statement has been given by the co-accused-Nilesh Yadav after being arrested by the Police, hence the same cannot be taken as an evidence against the applicant. It is further argued that the recovery memo goes to show that parts of the motorcycle of the deceased have been recovered on the pointing out of the co-accusedSandeep Rajbhar whereas nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It is further argued that except the confessional statement of the co-accusedNilesh Yadav before the Police, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2019. The criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit in support of bail application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 JK Yadav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail in a murder case accused by co-accused.
Whether the applicant surreptitiously disappearing and tampering with evidence would ensure bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok @ Pappu Yadav
Manju Rani Chauhan
J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
