Allowed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for Pradeep Yadav charged under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC. Court noted he was not named in FIR, has no criminal history, and co-accused obtained bail. Granted bail subject to strict conditions.
Grant of bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 92
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2596 of 2022
Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anuj Srivastava AOR No.A/A 042/2020 holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav learned AGA for the State.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant Pradeep Yadav for seeking bail in Case Crime No.142 of 2021 under Sections 419, 420, 409 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi.
The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 2.12.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Shankar Prasad Mandal before Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi being FIR No.0142 on 29.8.2021 at 17.28 hours, under Sections 419, 420, 409 I.P.C. against accused being Vikas Singh and Smt. Ritu Singh Singh with an allegation that the complainant herein had deposited an amount of Rs.26,250/- for getting interest and multiply the same. However, the complainant has been duped as said amount not being returned with interest despite the fact that assurance were being stated to be extended to him in this regard. He has further argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR. However, by virtue of the statement so sought to be recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which finds place at page 8 being S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit so filed today i.e.7.2.2022, the name of the applicant has been surfaced alleging that the applicant herein happens to be the Manager of the Company in question which has received the said amount. He has further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards page 48 of the bail application so as to contend that the amount of Rs.26,250/- has itself being transferred in the account of complainant on 27.10.2021.
In nutshell, argument learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated merely because a statement is being sought to be made by the complainant his name came into picture. He has also drawn the attention towards para 5 of the supplementary so as to contend that there is no criminal history and one of the co-accused named in the First Information Report being Smt. Ritu has already enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court by virtue of order dated 10.1.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56054 of 2021 Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. State of U.P., order whereof is being recapitulate herein under:-
"Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State appearing through Video Conferencing and also perused the material placed on record.
By means of the present application, the applicant- Smt. Ritu Singh seeks bail in Case Crime No.142 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 409 IPC, Police Station- Chetganj, District- Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant who is the Director of the Company, is said to have taken Rs.26,250/- from the first Informant and had promised her to be paid Rs.1000/- per week to the next 60 weeks which was not returned.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has returned the said money of the first informant and no dispute remains to be pending between the parties. It is also submitted that the applicant was pregnant and has given birth to child in jail on 21.09.2021. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2021 and being a mother of new born baby deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has also not disputed the aforesaid fact that the applicant has given birth of child in jail on 21.09.2021.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Smt. Ritu Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in 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 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 against her in accordance with law.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses."
Countering the said submissions learned AGA for the State has though opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence that is why be he is being prosecution in this regard. However, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant was named in the FIR and further the fact that he does not possess criminal history and co-accused has already been granted bail.
Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail particularly in view of the fact that the applicant named did not find place in the first information report and applicant does not have any criminal history and further the fact that co-accused Smt. Ritu Singh has already enlarged on bail, looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be
factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Pradeep Yadav involved in aforesaid 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 :-
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
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.
Order Date :- 7.2.2022 piyush
Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.08 18:05:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering his prima facie case, lack of prior criminal history, and the arrest of co-accused.
Whether the conditions for bail granted to the co-accused influence the current application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶16
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisonsReferred¶28
Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020
Smt. Ritu Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56054 of 2021
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Pradeep Yadav
Vikas Budhwar
Piyush Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
