Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25314 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arimardan Yadav,Akhilendra Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Munesh Kumar Upadhyay,Narendra Singh Chahar Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation in the first information report, the general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons. The co-accused Bhallu @ Rupendra Kumar, Rampravesh @ Talla and Ram Saran have already been enlarged on bail by the court below. During investigation, co-accused Ram Lakhan, Akash and Sonu have been exonerated. It is submitted that as per statement of informant, which is at page 28 of the paper book, applicant has been assigned the role of firing with the firearm on the injured Shiv Mohan, however, no firearm injury has been sustained. 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to page 30 of the paper book, which is the injury report of the injured Shiv Mohan, where the injured has sustained 12 injuries, however, no firearm injury has been sustained. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court to supplementary report, which is at page 34 of the paper book, where injury nos.7 to 11 have been caused by hard and blunt object and grievous in nature. He submits that these injuries, which have been caused to the injured Shiv Mohan, have been attributed in general to all the accused person. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out, as in the statement, injured has stated that applicant has assaulted with butt of the firearm. It is submitted that at the best, offence of grievous hurt would be made out against applicant. It is also submitted that applicant has criminal history of 21 cases and as such, bail application of the applicant has been rejected. Applicant is languishing in jail since 29.4.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant has criminal history of 21 cases and the applicant is history sheeter. He further submits that the injured has suffered 12 injuries out of which injury nos.7 to 11 are grievous in nature as per supplementary report. However, he does not dispute the fact that no firearm injury has been caused to the injured.

¶5Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶6Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "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."

¶7In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. 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.

¶8In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is 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. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, 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.

¶9The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶10No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶11It 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.

¶12Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶13It is to be seen in the present case that initially in the first information report, general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons. Three accused persons have been granted bail and three accused persons have been exonerated during investigation. The role assigned to the applicant in the statement of informant is of firing on the injured Shiv Mohan. However, no firearm injury has been sustained by the injured Shiv Mohan. Injuries suffered by the injured Shiv Mohan are caused by hard and blunt object, which has been attributed to all the accused persons. Applicant may although is having criminal history, however, as per evidence available on record, it cannot be said that applicant has intention to cause culpable homicide, as the prosecution case is that applicant was carrying firearm then causing of injury by hard and blunt object itself is indicative of fact that applicant has no intention to cause culpable homicide.

¶14Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15Let the applicant Rajesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No.172 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad 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 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.

¶16In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 D. Tamang High Court of Judicature at Allahabad