Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49287

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11304 of 2022

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Shrivastav,Akhilesh Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Pati Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 452 of IPC, P.S.- Jethwara District - Pratapgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He submits that as per the prosecution story, the present applicant including the other co-accused persons have assaulted the deceased with lathi, danda and axe and injuries are inflicted on the body of the injured. He submits that in fact, the name of the applicant is planted because of enmity and there are general role assigned to all the accused persons for beating and assaulting the deceased with the weapon, namely, lathi, danda and axe. He added that only a witness has assigned an specific role of the applicant for assaulting with axe, though, from perusal of the injury report, it transpires that there are lacerated wounds and thus, the story of the prosecution is demolished by itself. He also submits that except apart the aforesaid statement, there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him with the offence. Further, the co-accused persons, namely, Nandlal Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav and Nagendra Yadav have already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14171 of 2022, 13559 of 2022 and 10257 of 2022, respectively and as per the version of the first information report, including the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the injured, the role of the present applicant is identical to the role of the other accused persons. He also submits that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 9th April 2022 and the chargesheet has been filed and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in the near future. In

¶10

case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant maybe released on bail.

¶11

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and he has been assigned the role of assaulting with Axe. It is also submitted that the deceased died later on and parcha is filed by the Investigating Officer so as to add the charges under Section 302 of IPC, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the injury report does not support the version of the prosecution, so far as the present applicant is concerned. Further, general role has been assigned in the FIR to all the co-accused persons and all the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, coupled with the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 09.04.2022 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial proceeding

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on him furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section

¶17

229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3) 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.; and

¶19

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Anurag

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav @ Khanne Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anand Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Shivam Singh @ Aryan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Lko

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Neelam Gond vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others