Bhanu Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7876

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 57 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Bhanu Pratap Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lucknow And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Pathak,Jaleel Ahmad,Vijay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shweta Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 2159 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0376 of 2021 U/s 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Rudauli, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya; for releasing appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶9

It is informed that notice has already been served to complainant and the name of complainant's counsel is shown in the cause list, however, none appears on his behalf.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 21.08.2021, he does not have any criminal antecedent. He further submits that merely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, appellant was implicated falsely. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Satish Chandra Yadav has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.02.2023 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2192 of 2021 (copy of the said bail order is annexed at page no. 21 of the rejoinder affidavit). He further submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and all the above facts were not considered by learned trial court, hence, appellant is entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that after collecting sufficient evidence against appellant, charge-sheet was submitted by Investigating Officer. He does not dispute the fact that co-accused, namely, Satish Chandra Yadav has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., statements recorded U/s 161

¶13

Cr.P.C.; the role of appellant is found in the confessional statement of the co-accused person. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Bhanu Pratap Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶20

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Bhanu Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

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

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Shiv Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Satya Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Maurya @ Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Sanwal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kailash Chandra @ Kailash Chandra Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another