Dismissed

Pawan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023BAIL/25554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a repeat bail application for repeat offender Pawan Yadav, who faces charges of murder, rioting, and attempt to murder. Despite counsel citing trial delay under Antulay precedent, the court found no new grounds given the gravity of the offences and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail is rejected; trial directed to proceed on day-to-day basis.

Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140341

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25554 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Pawan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwanath Mishra,Amar Nath Singh,Amit Daga,Vivekanand Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Amar Nath Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This is a repeat application for bail filed by applicant Pawan Yadav seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2015, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC 7 C.R.L.A. & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act & 3/7/25 Arms Act, Police Station Piparich, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 570 of 2015 (State Vs. Pawan Yadav) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act & 3/7/25 Arms Act, Police Station Piparich, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 25.2.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4490 of 2017 (Pawan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, same is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶9

"1. Heard Sri M. J. Akhtar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶10

2. The present bail application has been moved by accused-applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.152 of 2015, S. T. No.510 of 2015, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B IPC and Section 7 C.R.L.A. Act and 3 (2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Sections 3, 7, 25 of Arms Act, Police Station-Pipraich, District-Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant is not named in FIR but record shows that witnesses Dharmendra Paswan, who claimed to be eye witness, has clearly stated that applicant and two others namely, Raghvendra, Dhiraj alias Dhiru Mishra opened fire upon him and he also sustained injuries in same incident. Another witness Jabbar Paswan, who has also sustained injury in same incident, has also supported the incident though he did not recognize all the persons.

¶11

4. I find that alleged incident has resulted into death of Jaihind Paswan and the manner in which incident has taken place has been consistently supported by all prosecution witnesses. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion and looking into entire facts and circumstances as well as gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case for

¶12

grant of bail.

¶13

6. Application is, accordingly, dismissed. "

¶14

With reference to the case diary, the learned A.G.A. contends that in the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings, two persons namely (i) Dharmendra Paswan and (ii) Dhirendra Nishad died on account of the gunshot injury sustained by them in the occurrence. One Dharmendra Paswan who alleges to be an eye witness of the occurrence has also sustained gun shot injuries. Three other persons namely (i) Jaihind Paswan, (ii) Angad paswan, (iii) Jabbar Paswan have also sustained injuries. The injured Jabbar Paswan has clearly supported the complicity of applicant in the crime in question.

¶15

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that though the trial is of the year 2015 and a period of seven years has rolled by, the trial not yet been concluded. Up to this stage only one prosecution witness has been examined.

¶16

On the basis of above, he submits that since there is delay in the conclusion of the trial and the said delay is not attributable to the applicant therefore by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another (1992) 1 SCC 225, he contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of accused, nature and gravity of offence this Court does not find any new or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. The application fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶18

It is, accordingly, rejected.

¶19

However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial on day to day basis.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.7.2023

¶21

Aiman

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan 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

Farooq @ Asghar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhakalu @ Laxmi Prasad Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakas @ Shani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others