Single judge allowed bail to accused in double homicide case, observing failure to name applicant in FIR and presence of large crowd at crime scene made identification unlikely.
Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail 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. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3997 of 2022
Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,Yadvendra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Dheeraj Kuamr Dwivedi, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Lalta Prasad Yadav for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.178 of 2021, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, during trial.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that the the first information report was lodged by a Chaukidar of the village on 30.10.2021 at 15.24 hours at Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur stating that a thief who was running away after committing theft in the house of one Ramakant Bind (named in the FIR) has been assaulted and done to death. In the postmortem report of the deceased six injuries have been found and his 3rd, 4th, 5th left rib and 4th, 5th and 6th right rib was found fractured with damage to the vital internal organs and as per the opinion of the doctor the death of the deceased has been caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that the applicant was not involved in any incident and it was in the statement of the chaukidar the complicity of applicant has surfaced for the first time and at the relevant time and date of the incident there was huge crowd which had assembled at the scene of crime and there was no possibility that any particular person could be identified in such a large crowd.
It is also submitted that prime witness in the instant case is the Chaukidar of the village and the name of the instant applicant
has been taken by him on the basis of prior enmity and there is no independent witness of the crime.
It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 31.10.2021. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and he is also not having any criminal antecedent. There is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused person who was also named in the FIR, namely, Ramakant Bind has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 17.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51607 of 2021.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submits that having regard to the evidence available on record the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the Complicity of the applicant has been found in the statement of the informant and it is alleged that had the applicant been involved in the incident his name should have surfaced in the first information report. The deceased was found running from the house of the co-accused Ramakant Bind and if any incident had happened that could only be happened with the co-accused Ramakant Bind, who has already been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicant is in jail in this case since 31.10.2021 and he is not having any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.
Let the applicant- Lalta Prasad Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.
Order Date :- 21.4.2022 Muk
Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.04.22 14:09:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail during the trial of the case.
Whether sufficient conditions can be imposed to secure the presence of the applicant and prevent tampering with evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalta Prasad Yadav
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
Mohd Umar Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
