Jaikant Yadav Alias Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14579 of 2020

Applicant :- Jaikant Yadav Alias Lalu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya,Bipin Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.P. Singh learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.223 of 2018 under sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. , Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. had been granted four opportunities to seek instruction but even then the instruction could not be received despite the fact that last opportunity had been given on earlier date vide order dated 27.7.2020, hence this Court proceeds to hear this bail application.

¶9

As per FIR, which has been got lodged by the wife of the deceased Prabhawati Devi, the prosecution case is that her husband Babloo Yadav had been taken away on 17.10.2018 at about 10.00 p.m. by the accused-applicant along with other coaccused on a motorcycle saying that he was called by Gram Pradhan Awadhesh Yadav. Thereafter, her husband did not return, then the informant went to the house of the Gram Pradhan, Awadesh Yadav to enquire about her husband, who disclosed that her husband had not come to him, therefore, apprehension was expressed by the informant that her husband might have been abducted by the accused-applicant alongwith other co-accused Ram Bhajan Yadav.

¶10

Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the post-mortem report suggests that a highly decomposed body was recovered at the pointing out of co-accused Ram Singhasan Singh, which was beyond recognition but it is the prosecution case that his body was identified by his cloth by the wife of the deceased. Further, it is argued that the said coaccused Ram Singhasan Singh has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.2.2020

¶11

passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3117 of 2019, copy of the same is on record at page-49 of the paper book. Further it is argue that the informant herself has not supported the prosecution case before the court below during the trial as she had stated that she had serious doubt about her husband having been taken away by the applicant Jaikant Yadav alias Lalu Yadav and Ram Bhajan Yadav, regarding this she had given application at the police station under her thumb impression, subsequently seven days thereafter her husband's dead body was recovered. She had also stated that two witnesses namely Rajesh Bind and Radhey Bind had told her on the next day of her husband's disappearance that her husband had been taken away on a motorcycle by the accused applicant but the said two witnesses Rajesh Bind and Radhey Bind in their statements before the court below have clearly stated that they had not met the informant nor had they given any information regarding the deceased having been seen in the company of the accused. He has no criminal history which has been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit, copy of which is not record but its copy had been provided by the learned counsel for the applicant today, which is taken on record. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 5.12.2018. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has drawn attention to the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 14.1.2019 in which it has been recorded that the police had arrested the co-accused Ram Singhasan Singh, who had stated that the accused-applicant was also involved in this occurrence and both of them had got recovered the burnt body of the deceased and his belongings such as Lungi, and slipper etc. and on the basis of that, the dead body of the deceased was recognized by the informant, hence involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out. It is also argued that disappearance of the deceased has taken place on 17.10.2018 and FIR was lodged immediately thereafter on 18.10.2019.

¶13

In the light of the aforesaid arguments, looking to the fact that the main accused Ram Singhasan Singh has been granted bail at whose instance the dead body of the deceased was recovered and also looking to the fact that the informant and two witnesses have not given any conclusive evidence against the accused-applicant having been seen in the company of the deceased, taking into consideration the nature of offence, quantum of punishment and period of detention in jail, and the case of the present applicant is at par with the case of the coaccused,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶14

case, it is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Jaikant Yadav alias Lalu Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶16

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.9.2020 AU

Jaikant Yadav Alias Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikant Yadav Alias Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Alias Paknaj Driver Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rampal Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Mishra@ Pooja Upadhyay Vs State Ofu.P.