Allowed

Gopi Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022BAIL/2022/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail application of Gopi Yadav charged with murder and lathi charges. Court held it was a fit case for bail despite serious allegations, emphasizing lack of credible evidence against applicant and application of settled bail jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond with two sureties subject to stringent conditions including attendance, no objection to evidence, and no further criminal activity.

Gopi Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2022 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gopi Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yatharth Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Yatharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Gopi Yadav under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Madihan, District- Mirzapur, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the present case are that the first information report dated 22.09.2021 has been lodged against 21 named and 200-250 unknown persons stating therein that on 22.09.2021 at about 02:00 P.M. son of the first informant age about 24 years had gone to the shop of Satyam Patel but a dispute arose between them and the bullet was fired and the bullet hit Satyam Patel, after that named and unknown persons committed marpit with the son of the first informant by lathi, danda, bricks, stone and iron rod, as a result of which son of the first informant received severe injuries and succumbed on the spot.

¶8

During the investigation, the postmortem has been conducted on 22.09.2021 and deceased has received multiple abrasion on upper chest region and have also received injury of lacerated wound on left forehead, on right and left eyebrow, on right and left parietal, on occipital, left cheek, on left and right cheek and on right chin. The applicant was arrested on 30.10.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report. He next contended that the applicant and two other named persons arrested by the Investigating Officer and showing the alleged recovery of bricks, stone and wooden logs from an open place and falsely

¶10

implicate the applicant in the present case. It is next contended that no incriminating articles has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The alleged recovery of have been made without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

¶11

It is further submitted that on 22.09.2021 three first information reports have been lodged including the present F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 159 of 2021 has been lodged at 18:51 hours against the son of the first informant, under Section 302 of I.P.C. which has been lodged by the brother of the Satyam Patel. The present first information report being Case Crime No. 160 of 2021 has been lodged at 20:44 hours and another first information report has been lodged being Case Crime No. 161 of 2021 at 23:30 hours by Head Constable at Police Chowki Rajgarh, P.S. Madihan, District- Mirzapur. He next contended that applicant has not committed any offence. There is no other credible or cogent evidence against the applicant.

¶12

He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶15

(a) An F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 159 of 2021 has been lodged at 18:51 hours against the son of the first informant, under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶16

(b) The name of the applicant has surfaced in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons.

¶17

¶18

(d) The present F.I.R. has been lodged against the 21 named and 200-250 unknown persons.

¶19

(e) No specific role has been attributed to the applicant.

¶20

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let applicant, Gopi 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 subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

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

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law.

¶30

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶34

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 Ishan

¶35

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.02.10 11:45:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopi Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rishipal @ Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar@ Shibbo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Smt Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.