Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190098

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42150 of 2023

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant and three other co-accused, namely, Kishore Singh, Shubham Singh @ Ashwani Singh and Sohan on 19.05.2023 at 12 hours committed the alleged offence. It is alleged that one pickup vehicle being driven by the applicant was dashed against bicycle whereon deceased, Makodar Yadav, was travelling. Co-accused, Sohan, who was also sitting in the pickup vehicle has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40877 of 2023.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case on account of earlier enmity with the family of the deceased. He has submitted that in the inquest report conducted on the dead body of the deceased, the witnesses clearly stated that the deceased has died due to injury suffered in the accident and nothing was stated about the offence being caused by the applicant or the co-accused. He has submitted that the informant, Vinay Kumar Yadav, was one of the witness of inquest proceeding and during inquest he never stated that the deceased died on account of being hit by vehicle of the applicant. It is stated in the inquest report that some unknown vehicle hit the deceased. He has submitted that the FIR was lodged on the next day i.e., on 20.05.2023 when the incident took place at 12:00 hours on 19.05.2023 and inquest proceeding was also conducted on the same day from 14:25 to 15:30 hours. He has finally submitted that co-accused, Shubham Singh @ Ashwani Singh, developed some closeness with the daughter of the deceased in the year 2022 due to which dispute took place between both the families and FIR under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC was registered by the

¶9

aforesaid co-accused against the deceased and his two sons. On account of aforesaid enmity the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. He is in jail since 21.05.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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; applicant 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., 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Pradeep Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 152 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station- Nautanwa, District- Maharajganj, 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.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 applicant fails 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Rohit

¶21

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

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Rajput @ Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Umesh Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Islawati Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rinku @ Machhu Vs State of U.P.

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P.