Allowed

Madan Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLA/2543/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections 147, 506, and 302, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the rejection order, directing the release of appellants on bail due to parallel bail grants to co-accused and insufficient evidence specifying one accused as the cause of fatal injury.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellants directed to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each.

Madan Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2543 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Madan Yadav And Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta,Swati Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Om Prakash Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This case has been taken up on the mention made by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

None is present for the respondent no. 2.

¶8

This appeal has been filed by appellants Madan Yadav and Dilram Yadav against the order dated 26.04.2018 of learned Special Judge/ SC/ST Act, Ghazipur passed in Bail Application No. 63 of 2018 ( Madan Yadav and another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2018, under sections 147, 506, 302 I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur, by which bail plea of appellants have been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶9

The F.I.R. version is that the incident took place on 14.03.2018 and F.I.R. was lodged on the next day on 15.03.2018 in which the appellants have been named as accused and the allegation is that the accused persons on the said date came to the house and they took Dharmendra with them. Dharmendra did not return till night and the family members started searching, when they reached to the house of accused Madan Yadav they saw that Dharmendra was lying on the floor and he was injured. On being informed on dial -100 the police reached there and Dharmendra was taken to Community Health Center, where he was declared dead. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that Dharmendra was killed by Madan Yadav and Dilram Yadav with other accused persons.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that coaccused Rajesh and Krishna Yadav have been released on bail by order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the order has been placed for perusal which is taken on record. Further submission of the learned counsel for

¶11

the appellants is that the case of the appellants is on similar footing as in the said bail order. It has been specifically pointed out that one injury was fatal and it is not certain who caused that injury. It has been also submitted that since the informant reached there and he did not see the accused persons causing the injury, therefore, his version is based on the fact that Dharmendra was lying on the floor of the house of the accused persons. Further submission is that these persons were found quarreling with Dharmendra. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in view of the fact that the appeal of two co-accused persons have been allowed and they have been granted bail and also taking into consideration that it is not certain which of the accused caused the fatal blow, the appellants are also entitled to be released on bail. It has been further submitted that learned Special Judge did not consider the material aspect of this case and influenced by the fact that the deceased belong to Scheduled Caste community, he rejected the bail application, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶12

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that learned Special Judge committed no illegality and passed the impugned order.

¶13

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for both the sides. In view of the fact that two co-accused persons with similar role have been released on bail as their bail application has been allowed, there is only one fatal blow and there is no eyewitness account to show that the fatal blow was given by these applicants. The applicants are in jail from more than three and half years and the possibility is that the trial will continue for a much longer time, I find that the learned court below has committed illegality in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶14

In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.04.2018 passed by learned learned Special Judge/ SC/ST Act, Ghazipur passed is set aside.

¶15

Let appellant-applicants Madan Yadav and Dilram Yadav be released on bail in Bail Application No. 63 of 2018 ( Madan Yadav and another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2018, under sections 147, 506, 302 I.P.C. and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant-appellants will co-operate with the 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 Bhanu

Madan Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shah Alam @ Buddhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gangaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd.Rizwan @ Mohd.Hiraq and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another