Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2965 (ALL)

Bhupendra Singh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-08-29

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. This application for bail has been filed on behalf of the applicant Bhupendra Singh Yadav, who is involved in case crime no. 508 of 2014 under sections 147, 504, 506, 307, 427 IPC, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur. Heard Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. Swati Agrawal, learned Special Counsel for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter on account of political rivalry. He has not committed the present offence. The criminal history shown against the applicant has been properly explained in the supplementary affidavit filed on earlier occasion. Although, the applicant has been convicted and appeal filed on his behalf is pending, but there is no embargo upon release of the applicant in the present matter. It is further submitted that co-accused Gajraj, who was assigned the same role, has been released on bail in this matter. The role attributed to the present applicant is not distinguishable from the co-accused. Firing is said to have been made, but no one received injury from the prosecution side. This fact itself creates suspicion about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 13.10.2014. In rebuttal, Smt. Swati Agrawal, learned special counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that several criminal cases are pending against the applicant. In one of the cases, he has been convicted and in regard to that case, a criminal appeal no. 5829 of 2005 (Lallu alias Lal Divan and Another Versus State of U.P.) filed on behalf of the applicant is pending before this Court. Initially, applicant had been enlarged on bail in the appeal, but when he misused the liberty of bail and absconded, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal cancelled the bail of the applicant by passing the following order on 31.7.2014: "Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Hon'ble Akhtar Husain Khan,J. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants even in the revised reading of the appeal. Heard Smt. Swati Agarwal, learned Special Counsel for the State. Heard Smt. Swati Agarwal, learned Special Counsel for the State. This application has been made on behalf of the State of Utter Pradesh for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of appellant no.2 Bhupendra Yadav vide order dated 10th June, 2009. A copy of this application was forwarded to Sri A.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants by speed post. Receipt issued by the post office in that regard is on record. On 9th July, 2014 when this bail cancellation application came up for consideration before the Court, it was noticed that none of the counsels for the appellants, who are nearly 20 in number had responded on the call of the list. The Special Counsel for the State made a statement that none of the counsels are ready to represent the appellant Bhupendra Yadav. This Court found it just and proper to direct that the notices be issued to the appellants on the bail cancellation application returnable within three weeks. It was directed that the bail cancellation application would be listed on 31st July, 2014. A report has been received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur through fax today wherein it is recorded that notice of the application on appellant no.1 Lallu @ Lal Divan has been served. So far as appellant no.2 Bhupendra Yadav against whom bail cancellation application has been made, is concerned, it has been reported that he is absconding, since long before and that his wife has refused to accept the notice. In view of the said report, we deem service of the bail cancellation application as sufficient. We find that the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, in support of bail cancellation application have gone uncontroverted. From paragraph-7 of the affidavit, we find that proceedings under the Gangster Act being Case Crime No. 438A/12 were initiated against the accused Bhupendra Yadav. He was granted bail by the Apex Court under order dated 3rd February, 2012 with certain conditions. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit it is stated that appellant no.2 Bhupendra Yadav did not comply with the conditions mentioned therein. He was granted bail by the Apex Court under order dated 3rd February, 2012 with certain conditions. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit it is stated that appellant no.2 Bhupendra Yadav did not comply with the conditions mentioned therein. After he was bailed out in the case under the Gangster Act, he has been found to be involved in 6 other criminal cases being case Crime No. 655 of 2013, Case Crime No. 29 of 2013, Case Crime No. 91 of 2013, Case Crime No. 483 of 2014, Case Crime No. 508 of 2014, Case Crime No. 488 of 2014. Learned Special Counsel for the State has informed the Court that the bail granted to the appellant Bhupendra Yadav in the case under the Gangster Act has also been cancelled under order dated 22nd April, 2014. A copy of the order has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail cancellation application. Since then he is absconding. In these set of facts, which have been gone uncontroverted. We have hold that the bail granted in favour of appellant no.2 Bupendra Yadav has been misused by him. Therefore, for the facts recorded above, we feel it just and proper to cancel the bail granted in favour of appellant no.2 Bhupendra Yadav under order dated 10th June, 2009. It is ordered accordingly. Let the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur take necessary steps for compliance of the order passed today. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur by the office by tomorrow i.e. 1st August, 2014 for necessary compliance. (Akhtar Husain Khan, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date : - 31.7.2014" Thus, referring to these set of facts, learned special counsel for the State submitted that the applicant has committed several offences including the present offence after obtaining bail, hence he is not entitled to bail on the ground that the co-accused has already been released on bail. (Akhtar Husain Khan, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date : - 31.7.2014" Thus, referring to these set of facts, learned special counsel for the State submitted that the applicant has committed several offences including the present offence after obtaining bail, hence he is not entitled to bail on the ground that the co-accused has already been released on bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the specific order passed by this Court on 31.7.2014 in aforesaid criminal appeal when bail order granted to the applicant in the aforementioned criminal appeal has been cancelled on the ground of misuse of the liberty of bail and also looking to the conduct of the applicant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail in this matter. Accordingly, the application for bail of the accused-applicant is rejected.