Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3377 of 2020

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Sri Mohd Shoeb Khan, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of first informant as well as copies of rejection of bail orders, are taken on record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Mohd Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is not named in F.I.R.; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged at 1:29 a.m. on 22.12.2018 against 7 named and one unknown person, the accused persons, with an intention to take over possession on the house of first informant, assaulted with arms and upon protest, caused death of his father Durga Singh and mother Kamlawati Devi and caused injuries to his nephew Prince and others; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that the real fact is that Durga Singh, his wife and associates assaulted Rammanohar Yadav @ Munshi and caused his death, of which F.I.R. was lodged by Vikas Yadav at 01:57 a.m. on 22.12.2018; that name of applicant came to light for the first time in the statements of alleged witnesses Ram Singh and Surendra Singh after two days of incident who assigned applicant with the role of exhortation; that applicant has not been assigned with the role of causing any injury to deceased Durga Singh and Kamlawati or to injured persons; that the case of applicant is distinguishable from persons who are said to have assaulted the deceased and injured persons and caused injuries to them; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from applicant and recovery of weapons of crime have been made from co-accused Vikas Yadav, Raju and Mukesh Yadav; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 24.12.2018

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the place of occurrence is house of first informant which indicates that co-accused persons were aggressors; that F.I.R. was lodged by Pradeep Singh who was not aware with the name of several persons who were accompanying with named accused persons and so the name of applicant was later on disclosed by eye witness; that the bail applications of coaccused persons namely, Mithai Lal Yadav, Brahmanand Yadav @ Pappu Yadav and Santosh Kumar Yadav have been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.11.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 41931 of 2019, 25595 of 2019 and 26148 of 2019, copies of which have been produced for perusal and taken on record; that applicant accompanied the above persons as well as named co-accused persons with common object of unlawful assembly and he was also a member of unlawful assembly and equally liable for the murders.

¶10

In reply learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant did not participate in the incident in any capacity and has been falsely named by alleged eye witness; that principle of parity is not applicable in matters of rejection of bail.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record version and counter version and considering 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 find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let applicant Sandeep Kumar Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 335 of 2018 of under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 506, 34 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Khazani, District Gorakhpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will co-operate with trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Md Faisal

Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Pal Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shayam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Chand Jaiswal and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.