Allowed

Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024BAIL/10827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application for murder-related offences; applicant in jail over five years with trial incomplete though all fact witnesses examined. Court granted bail on furnishing bonds with strict conditions against adjournments, tampering and absence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to six conditions including no adjournment seeking and mandatory presence at key trial stages.

Suresh Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Addil… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74129

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10827 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Achal Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Maurya,Vikas Vikram Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

This is the third bail application of the applicant as the second bail application bearing no.2431 of 2024 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2024 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial by 31.08.2024 on day to day basis. It was further observed that any type of tricks, games or sabotaging if planned to delay the trial shall give a right to move third bail application to the applicant on the ground of delayed conclusion of trial. Further observations were also made by this Court that no preferential treatment would be given to either of the parties and in case the trial court fails to conclude the trial within the specified period, explanation shall be sought from the erring judicial officer and adverse inference shall be drawn against the learned Sessions Judge.

¶7

Aforesaid rejection order was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.6746 of 2024 which was dismissed with the observation that in case trial is not concluded expeditiously, it is open for the applicant to move fresh bail application.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.366 of 2019, u/s 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 323, 120-B, 216 I.P.C., Police Station-Harchandpur, District Raebareli. with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2019. He further submitted that more than five years have already been elapsed but trial has not been

¶11

concluded till today. Out of 25 witnesses, eleven witnesses have already been examined including the witnesses of fact and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He has further submitted that earlier the applicant has been implicated in three cases, in one case final report has been filed and in two cases he is on bail. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learning AGA opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that the applicant is having criminal history of two cases in which he is on bail but he does not dispute the fact that he is in jail since 14.10.2019. He has also stated that only 11 eleven witnesses have been examined out of 25 witnesses.

¶13

Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant files short counter affidavit which is taken on record. Relying on para 16 of the short counter affidavit, it has been submitted by learned counsel for complainant that delaying tactics are being adopted by learned counsel for the accused persons as PWs-1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 were cross examined by the accused persons on 22,18, 35, 32, 5,8,17,60,25,31 days respectively. The delay is being caused due to act of learned counsel for applicant and other accused persons, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents including the orders passed by this Court in first and second bail applications as well as in SLP, it is evident that the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2019; all the witnesses of fact have already been examined, therefore I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let applicant - Suresh Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant 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 229-A IPC.

¶20

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Renu/-

¶24

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

Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mewa Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kailash Bajrang Tawar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kannojia S/O Late Bramha Deen (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy .Deptt of Home Civil Sectt Lko and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Bijuli Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Zaheer Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another