Himanshu Yadav Alias Kariman Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10873 of 2023 Applicant :- Himanshu Yadav Alias Kariman Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava,Shashi Kant Shukla,Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Chandel Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant are taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and Sri Manoj Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 515 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau during the pendency of the trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the first information report two named persons including the applicant and 8-9 unknown persons are alleged to have assaulted two injured. In the statement of two injured, the applicant and co-accused Sanjeet Yadav are alleged to have caused injuries. It is next contended that co-accused Sanjeet Yadav alias Bablu Yadav has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6001 of 2023, Sanjeet Yadav alias Bablu Yadav v. State of U.P., vide order dated 16.03.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 30.12.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶6After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that identically placed co-accused Sujeet Yadav alias Bablu Yadav has been granted bail by this Court. The injuries found on the person of Ramashish four in number are all simple in nature except one injury, which was found linear fracture of temporal bone. The other injured, namely, Rambachan has suffered simple injury. At the most one injury, which is in the form of fracture on the person of Ramashish, can be said to be covered under Section 307 I.P.C. There are two assailants and it is not known who caused the aforesaid injury.

¶7Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶8In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para-30 has observed as under: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶9In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶10Further, the applicant has remained confined for ten months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11Let the applicant-Himanshu Yadav alias Kariman Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶12In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad