Allowed

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024CRLA/5289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act and Section 306 IPC, the Allahabad High Court observed that the appellant had suffered significant incarceration and viewed that timely trial would not be possible. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail subject to condit

What did the court decide?

The appellant, Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash, was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124789

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5289 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. A compliance affidavit regarding service of notice upon opposite party no.2 has been filed by learned AGA. The same is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This is second criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 16.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act/Addl. Session Judge, Budaun in Third Bail Application No.1084/2024 (Bhurey Yadav @ Vedprakash vs. State) in Special Session Trial No.1711 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 2023 under Section 306 of IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bisauli,District Budaun, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. It is further prayed to release the appellant on bail in the said case crime, during pendency of trial. The first criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant has been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.8301 of 2023.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the star witnesses of the case, i.e. (PW-1) Prem Shila, (PW-2) Ashmita Kumari and (PW-3) Asmani, have been examined. In her statement, PW-1 has specifically stated that the names of the accused persons have been told to her by the concerned Circle Officer. It has also been argued that since the star witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no chance of tempering the evidence. It is a case of malicious prosecution and due to ulterior motive, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that co-accused Satendra Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 15.7.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4841 of 2024. The

¶10

applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2023, having no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶12

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

¶13

"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 SCC para-15 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."

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed .

¶15

Let appellant, Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash, be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(1). The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶17

(2). The appellant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(3). The appellant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(4). The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 RKK/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Keshav Kohar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devanand Yadav @ Tuntun vs State of Up and Another

Mohit Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Singh vs State of Up and Another

Rahul Kumar vs State of Up and Another