Golu Yadav @ Kartik v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45403 of 2023 Applicant :- Golu Yadav @ Kartik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh,Km Astha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶2Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2022, U/S 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Abhishek Alias Muin has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.7.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21489 of 2022. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.1.2023. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶4The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on the ground that the applicant has criminal history of three cases.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history of the applicant stands explained at para 12 of the affidavit annexed with the application. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶7Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶8Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Golu Yadav @ Kartik who is involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) 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.

¶9In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶10It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad