Monu Yadav @ Pawan Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50175 of 2023 Applicant :- Monu Yadav @ Pawan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. There is allegation in the first information report that the informant is owner of the general merchant shop. On 22.05.2023 at about 10.30 p.m when daughter of the informant was sitting in the shop the local toughs, Monu Yadav, Seepu Gautam and 2-3 unknown accused, came on the shop and started outraging modesty of her daughter. They tried to drag her and started threatening her of life. When the wife of the informant came they also beated her by lathi and danda. Then local public came and accused persons broke the glass and doors and after threatening they ran way. In the incident caused by the accused persons, Laloo Mistri also got seriously injured and died after treatment in a private hospital hence first information report was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant is customer of the informant and he had gone to the shop to clear account, where some dispute took place between the applicant and daughter of informant. Thereafter wife of informant came and took side of her daughter. Co-accused came and tried to intervene. Thereafter the public also came and both the side started pelting stones upon each other and the applicant never used force to outrage modesty of the daughter of the informant. General allegations of throwing bricks and stones were levelled. The applicant and the co-accused had no enmity or motive to cause injury to the deceased. The deceased is alleged to have been injured by some stones or bricks but there is no such injury found on his body. No recovery of weapon was made from the applicant. Applicant has criminal history of two cases of minor nature explained in paragraph 31 of the bail application. Applicant is in jail since 25.05.2023. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant and he along with other co-accused has caused offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of one person. After hearing rival contentions of the parties, the court finds that no specific role assigned to the applicant or any other accused regarding commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the deceased. Deceased suffered internal injury in his head as found by the Doctor from CT Scan report. The other offences alleged are of attempt to outrage modesty of the daughter of the informant only. The deceased was discovered on the next day in injured condition. It is not known whether he suffered injuries in this incident or in some other incident. Applicant is in jail since 25.05.2023. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated

11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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. Let the applicant, Monu Yadav @ Pawan Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.110 of 2023, under Sections 323, 336, 354, 427, 506, 511, 304 I.P.C, Police Station Gujaini, District-Kanpur Nagar 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 the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of two year. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within ten days. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 SS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad