Allowed

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023BAIL/53327/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed joint bail applications for two accused men in a murder case where one was not in the FIR. Applying Supreme Court precedents, the court held that since only an exhortation role was assigned instead of firing, the applicants made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123112

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53327 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kesh,Virendra Pratap Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51125 of 2022

¶7

Applicant :- Kaushal Gound@ Jaggu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Pandey

¶8

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶9

Since these bail applications arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53327 of 2022 is being treated as a leading case.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶11

In this case, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that on 20.9.2022 at about 6.00 p.m. when the informant alongwith his family members including his son Adarsh Mishra was going to the Temple, the accused persons met them on the way and on exhortation of accused Monu to his brother Sushil @ Goldee, he (Sushil @ Goldee) opened fire upon Adarsh Mishra, son of the informant, which resulted into his instantaneous death and one Vipin Mishra also sustained injury in the incident. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not committed the present offence. It is

¶13

further submitted that no role of firing has been assigned to the present applicants. Specific role of firing has been assigned to coaccused Sushil @ Goldee, who caused firearm injury to the deceased Adarsh Mishra. Applicant Kaushal Gound@ Jaggu is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came into light in the statement of injured recorded under Section 161 CrPC and even in the said statement of the injured only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant Kaushal Gound@ Jaggu. It is nowhere stated in the statement of witnesses that the present applicants made any fire in the incident. Applicants have no criminal history. They are languishing in jail since 21.9.2022 and 4.10.2022, respectively and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that active role and participation of both the applicants has come into light during course of investigation. They were well present on the spot and on their exhortation fire was made upon the deceased, which resulted into his instantaneous death.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶17

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶18

In Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

¶19

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶20

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

¶21

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶22

In this matter, as is evident from the record applicant Kaushal Gound@ Jaggu is not named in the F.I.R. and only role of exhortation has been assigned to the present applicants. Applicants are in jail since 21.9.2022 and 4.10.2022, respectively Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, role of the applicants, complicity of the accused, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases as well as in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 applications are allowed .

¶23

Let the applicants Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu and Kaushal Gound@ Jaggu involved in Case Crime No. 230 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law

¶24

Amendment Act, P.S. Kandhrapur, District - Azamgarh be released on bail on furnishing each 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.

¶25

(i). The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶26

(ii). The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(iii). The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(iv). The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶29

(v). The applicants 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶31

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail applications. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶32

Order Date :- 1.6.2023 safi

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Yadav @ Monu 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

Suab Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sharafat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Oomi @ Omprakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others