Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9585 of 2023 Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Meera Devi,Kristen Sleeth,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellant is taken on record. Mrs. Reema Gupta, learned A.G.A. submits that service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2 has been duly served but no one has put in appearance on her behalf. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria in Bail Application No. 333 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahuadih, District Deoria. As per the prosecution version on 27.06.2022 at around 6 pm husband of the informant had gone to Ramapur, Gaunariya but he did not return late night. She searched his whereabouts but could not be traced out. Thereafter, in the next morning the dead body of her husband was found lying near the canal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent, not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that a letter was recovered from the dead body of the deceased namely Srikant in which the name of Achhe Lal Yadav was narrated and on the basis of confessional statement of Achhe Lal, the name of appellant was disclosed during investigation. It is further submitted that informant during her statement before the trial court made allegation of committing murder of her husband against Harendra, Ramanand and Pintoo while she categorically denied that she knew the present appellant and there was not dispute of the present appellant with her husband. She further stated that appellant never visited her house. It is also submitted that so far as recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant is concerned, the same has been made from an open place and there is no public witness of the aforesaid recovery. So far as criminal history of appellant is concerned, the same has been explained in para-37 to 49 of the affidavit filed in support of appeal. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since

28.09.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Let the appellant, namely, Dinesh Kumar Yadav involved in the above Case be released on bail on 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

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

(iv) The appellant 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 appellant 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. In 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 :- 6.11.2023 AKT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad