Allowed

Mukesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021CRLA/2881/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal appeal against the bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act. Finding the appellant not named in the FIR and lacking incriminating material despite involvement in an incident leading to death, it granted bail subject to strict conditions including zero-adjournments and personal presence during trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Mukesh Yadav released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no adjournments and mandatory presence for trial proceedings.

Mukesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2881 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mukesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shams Tabrez Alam Ansari

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 9.7.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur in Bail Application No.1401 of 2021 (Mukesh Yadav vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime No.84 of 2021, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sadat, District-Ghazipur.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The present F.I.R. is a result of an incident said to have taken place on 20.4.2021 and on the same day Smt. Meera Devi has lodged the present F.I.R. against Manish @ Abhimanyu Yadav and Dharmendra and three other unknown persons, u/s 147, 148, 323, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act at Police Station-Sadat, District-Ghazipur. It has been further contended that in this transaction one Ram Lal lost his life and three other sustained injuries. I have perused the post-mortem report of the deceased Ram Lal which reveals that there are three injuries on non vital part of his body. The deceased himself was an old person of 68 years. Viscera of the deceased was preserved.

¶8

Further contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the name of applicant has surfaced during investigation in the statement of injured Amarjeet, in which he has filled in the blanks by inserting the name of appellant at the later stage of investigation. There is no specific role attributed to the appellant nor any incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.6.2021.

¶9

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above

¶10

facts.

¶11

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the appellant- Mukesh Yadav , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶15

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN

¶18

PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 9.7.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.9.2021 M. Kumar

Mukesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mustkim and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar@ Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ram Dayal Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahzad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another