Allowed

Siddhu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023BAIL/3950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition of the applicant in a murder and kidnapping conspiracy case. Despite a criminal history, the Court considered jail overcrowding, the right to speedy trial, and one-sided investigation, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties; Trial Court directed to conclude trial within one year.

Siddhu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 20.02.2023 Delivered On:- 27.02.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3950 of 2022 Applicant :- Siddhu Yadav

¶4

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Dubey,Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari,Rabindra Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Mishra

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saket Jaiswal

¶7

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rabindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Saket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant and named accused, Dhiraj Gupta and their other companions made closeness to the mother of the informant and thereafter after misleading her took gold worth several lakhs from her. Since they did not wanted to return the gold therefore on 17.08.2021 the applicant and co-accused abducted her with intention to cause her murder and on 19.08.2021 the elder brother of the informant lodged a missing report.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant submits that the investigating officer recovered the dead body of the deceased on the pointing out of coaccused, Dhiraj Gupta, from his house on 27.08.2021. The applicant has been implicated only because of being friend of co-accused, Dhiraj Gutpa, who was related to the deceased. The incident took place on 17.08.2021 but FIR was lodged after 10 days on 27.08.2021. Except suspicion there is nothing against the applicant. He has criminal history of three cases

¶11

¶12

explained in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit in support of bail application and is in jail since 14.09.2021.

¶13

Counsel for the informant, Sri Saket Jaiswal, has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. He is friend of Dhiraj Gupta and was clearly involved with his friend. He has been assigned the role of hatching conspiracy with co-accused, Dhiraj, for causing murder of the deceased. On the pointing out of the applicant, mobile phone used in commission of offence was recovered. The applicant has been charge sheeted under Section 364, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. He has criminal history of three cases which includes one case under Section 392 IPC and the other cases are of theft and attempt to murder.

¶14

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that at the most the applicant has been assigned the role of conspiracy along with coaccused, Dhiraj Gupta. The certified copy of the statement of P.W-1 recorded on 22.12.2022 has been placed before this Court where from it appears that the main allegations have been made against co-accused, Dhiraj Gupta. Recovery of decomposed dead body of deceased was made from the house of co-accused, Dhiraj Gupta and not the the applicant. Trial has already begun and it will take time to conclude.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicants being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.,

¶16

¶17

passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant, Siddhu Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 436 of 2021, under Sections- 364, 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police StationColonelganj, District- Allahabad, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶20

(ii) 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 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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

¶24

(v) 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶25

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶27

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶28

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week.

¶29

Order Date :- 27.02.2023

¶30

Rohit

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Siddhu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddhu 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

Shri Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Utkarsh @ Sarthak Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Sonveer Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others