Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 692 (ALL)

Umashankar Yadav v. State of U. P.

2024-03-05

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Monu Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Umashankar Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.468 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Gauri Bazar, District-Deoria, during the pendency of the trial. 3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 14.11.2023 at about 12 O' clock when the informant's son was cutting grass in the field, seven named accused including the applicant reached there and stopped the informant's son Satish from cutting grass. When he refused to do the same, Rajesh Yadav instigated all the persons and hit Satish by Tangi on his head due to which he sustained injuries. After hearing the noise, the informant and his daughter Vimlesh and nephew Santosh reached the place of incident to save Satish. All accused persons having lathi danda and rod assaulted the aforesaid persons, due to which, Santosh sustained injuries on his head. All the accused entered the informant's house and vandalized it. Ramniwash and other villagers reached the place of incident in order to save the informant and his family members, seeing whom, the accused persons ranaway. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons of causing injuries to the informant and his family members, however, specific role has been assigned to Ramesh of assaulting Vimlesh and Satish. The role of applicant is only of causing injuries by lathi and danda with other co-accused persons to the informant and other family members. The injuries as sustained by other family members cannot be said to have been caused by the applicant. He further submits that other co-accused persons namely, Ramjee Yadav and Rajesh Yadav and Vikram Yadav, have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.02.2024, 26.02.2024 and 05.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6365 of 2024 and 7244 of 2024 and 6462 of 2024 respectively. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the same relief on the ground of parity. He has stated in paragraph-31 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. Bail Application Nos.6365 of 2024 and 7244 of 2024 and 6462 of 2024 respectively. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the same relief on the ground of parity. He has stated in paragraph-31 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2023. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means and there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, however, they could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been released on bail. 6. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 7. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. 8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would dis-entitle the applicant for Bail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) 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. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. 11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.