High Court

(Order on C.M. Application No.1/2024-FIRST BAIL APPLICATION)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellants-applicants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Raju Pal @ Surya Narayan, who are convict of Special Trial Gangester/1000050/2009 arising out of Case Crime No.768/08, under sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3(1) UP. G. Act Police Station-Kotwali Bikapur, District-Faizabad/Ayodhya during the pendency of instant appeal.

3. As per the prosecution story, informant Jagdish Prasad lodged an F.I.R. while alleging that on 23.7.2008, at about 10 am, Pradeep Kumar son of Rajaram (applicant-appellant no.1 here in this appeal) visited the residence of the informant wherein the informant, his sister and mother were present and at the very same time, he called Rajupal son of Gangaram Pal (applicant-appellant no.2 here in this appeal) and in a planned way, they took away the brother of informant, namely, Harish Kumar (deceased) for feeding Sanjog Masala with Jeep No. UP. 42 B 4584. It has also been alleged that while parking jeep before the house of Hadishul darjee, the appellant-applicant no.1 intook the Sanjog Masala and also gave it to Harish and Pradeep. It is also alleged that brother of the informant had given Rs.25,000/- for getting him appointed in transport department and with a motive of misappropriating the amount, they took the deceased to Visuhi river for taking dip/bath and once they reached over there, the appellants-applicants pushed the deceased into the river from the bridge. It is also specifically alleged that at about 12 am Pradeep caught the deceased from backside and another appellant-applicant, namely, Rajupal had strangulated him. It is also alleged that incident was seen by the villagers, namely, Haribhawan and his borther Manish Kumar, Ravi, Ajit @ Jitu, Jaisraj and Vinod.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that the appellants-applicant have been falsely implicated and convicted. He argued that medical report also does not support the version of the prosecution as there is no mark of strangulation over the neck of the deceased. He submits that the First Information Report is delayed by two days but no plausible explanation is given and even learned trial court has also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He submits that Hadishul darjee could be one of the reliable witnesses but the prosecution did not produce him as he could have narrated the truth. He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses, who are claiming themselves to be eye witnesses, are contradictory which demolishes the story of the prosecution. He next added that if it is true that the incident was seen by the prosecution witnesses, why they have not informed it to the police station, which creates material doubt in the prosecution story. It is also submitted that if the eye witnesses along with the other people were present over the spot then as to why they did not try to save the life of the deceased. It is also submitted that there are major contradiction and discrepancies in the version of the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants- applicants is that the dead body of the deceased was found after two days of the alleged incident. He submits that except apart the interested witness, who is the brother of the deceased, namely, Manish Kumar, there is no eye witness who has supported the version of the prosecution story. Further from the inquest report, it is apparent that the deceased died due to drowning. The testimony, which was deposed, is also unworthy for reliance and one of the alleged eye witnesses Ravi Singh has turned hostile as he did not support the version of the prosecution.

6. Concluding his arguments, he submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence though the prosecution has failed to channelize the story. He argued that the appellant-applicant no.1 has four cases criminal history wherein he has been enlarged on bail and the appellant-applicant no.2 has no criminal antecedent. Further submission is that the appellants-applicants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and and in case they are granted bail, they will co-operate in hearing of the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that as per the F.I.R. it is a case of throttling and the incident has been seen by two of the eye witnesses, i.e., Manish Kumar and Ravi Singh. He added that learned trial court has rightly considered the case and there is no perversity in the same. Thus, submission is that appellants-applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case for grant of bail.

9. In result, the bail application of the appellants-applicants is allowed.

10. Let the appellants-applicants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Raju Pal @ Surya Narayan involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants-applicants within one month from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellants-applicants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellants-applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

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

12. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellants-applicants to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper book at the earliest, if already not prepared.

2. List this appeal in the second week of August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Ram Murti

(Order on C.M. Application No.1/2024-FIRST BAIL APPLICATION)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been moved by the appellants-applicants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Raju Pal @ Surya Narayan, who are convict of Special Trial Gangester/1000050/2009 arising out of Case Crime No.768/08, under sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3(1) UP. G. Act Police Station-Kotwali Bikapur, District-Faizabad/Ayodhya during the pendency of instant appeal.

3. As per the prosecution story, informant Jagdish Prasad lodged an F.I.R. while alleging that on 23.7.2008, at about 10 am, Pradeep Kumar son of Rajaram (applicant-appellant no.1 here in this appeal) visited the residence of the informant wherein the informant, his sister and mother were present and at the very same time, he called Rajupal son of Gangaram Pal (applicant-appellant no.2 here in this appeal) and in a planned way, they took away the brother of informant, namely, Harish Kumar (deceased) for feeding Sanjog Masala with Jeep No. UP. 42 B 4584. It has also been alleged that while parking jeep before the house of Hadishul darjee, the appellant-applicant no.1 intook the Sanjog Masala and also gave it to Harish and Pradeep. It is also alleged that brother of the informant had given Rs.25,000/- for getting him appointed in transport department and with a motive of misappropriating the amount, they took the deceased to Visuhi river for taking dip/bath and once they reached over there, the appellants-applicants pushed the deceased into the river from the bridge. It is also specifically alleged that at about 12 am Pradeep caught the deceased from backside and another appellant-applicant, namely, Rajupal had strangulated him. It is also alleged that incident was seen by the villagers, namely, Haribhawan and his borther Manish Kumar, Ravi, Ajit @ Jitu, Jaisraj and Vinod.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants-applicants submits that the appellants-applicant have been falsely implicated and convicted. He argued that medical report also does not support the version of the prosecution as there is no mark of strangulation over the neck of the deceased. He submits that the First Information Report is delayed by two days but no plausible explanation is given and even learned trial court has also failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He submits that Hadishul darjee could be one of the reliable witnesses but the prosecution did not produce him as he could have narrated the truth. He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses, who are claiming themselves to be eye witnesses, are contradictory which demolishes the story of the prosecution. He next added that if it is true that the incident was seen by the prosecution witnesses, why they have not informed it to the police station, which creates material doubt in the prosecution story. It is also submitted that if the eye witnesses along with the other people were present over the spot then as to why they did not try to save the life of the deceased. It is also submitted that there are major contradiction and discrepancies in the version of the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants- applicants is that the dead body of the deceased was found after two days of the alleged incident. He submits that except apart the interested witness, who is the brother of the deceased, namely, Manish Kumar, there is no eye witness who has supported the version of the prosecution story. Further from the inquest report, it is apparent that the deceased died due to drowning. The testimony, which was deposed, is also unworthy for reliance and one of the alleged eye witnesses Ravi Singh has turned hostile as he did not support the version of the prosecution.

6. Concluding his arguments, he submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence though the prosecution has failed to channelize the story. He argued that the appellant-applicant no.1 has four cases criminal history wherein he has been enlarged on bail and the appellant-applicant no.2 has no criminal antecedent. Further submission is that the appellants-applicants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and and in case they are granted bail, they will co-operate in hearing of the appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that as per the F.I.R. it is a case of throttling and the incident has been seen by two of the eye witnesses, i.e., Manish Kumar and Ravi Singh. He added that learned trial court has rightly considered the case and there is no perversity in the same. Thus, submission is that appellants-applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case for grant of bail.

9. In result, the bail application of the appellants-applicants is allowed.

10. Let the appellants-applicants, namely, Pradeep Kumar Yadav and Raju Pal @ Surya Narayan involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants-applicants within one month from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellants-applicants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellants-applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

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

12. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellants-applicants to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal)

1. Office is directed to prepare the paper book at the earliest, if already not prepared.

2. List this appeal in the second week of August, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Ram Murti