High Court

Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav @ Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Deepika Gupta,Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari,Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Counter affidavit filed today by the State counsel is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 227 of 2024, under sections 109(1), 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, P.S.- Gosaiganj District - Ayodhya. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that there are general allegation in the first information report against all the accused persons for beating the injured. He added that even the injured persons have not specified any role to the present applicant and the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. He submits that applicant's side has also received injuries and there are cross version of FIRs and this could not be segregated at this stage that which party was the aggressor. He next added that identically situated co-accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12179 of 2024 vide order dated 8.1.2025 passed by this Court and applicant is seeking parity of the same. He next submits that there is no complaint against the applicant that he is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings and he has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that one of the witnesses namely, Lavkush Yadav has indicated the name of the present applicant along with other co-accused persons for beating the injured persons. He added that serious injuries have been inflicted on the body of the injured and the applicant is named in the first information report and as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the general role has been assigned to the present applicant including the accused persons; the applicant's side has also received injuries and there are cross version of FIRs and this could not be segregated at this stage that which party was the aggressor; the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024; identically situated co- accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has already been enlarged on bail; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Pradeep Yadav @ Deepak Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Shravan

Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav @ Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Deepika Gupta,Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari,Girish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Counter affidavit filed today by the State counsel is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 227 of 2024, under sections 109(1), 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, P.S.- Gosaiganj District - Ayodhya. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that there are general allegation in the first information report against all the accused persons for beating the injured. He added that even the injured persons have not specified any role to the present applicant and the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. He submits that applicant's side has also received injuries and there are cross version of FIRs and this could not be segregated at this stage that which party was the aggressor. He next added that identically situated co-accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12179 of 2024 vide order dated 8.1.2025 passed by this Court and applicant is seeking parity of the same. He next submits that there is no complaint against the applicant that he is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings and he has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that one of the witnesses namely, Lavkush Yadav has indicated the name of the present applicant along with other co-accused persons for beating the injured persons. He added that serious injuries have been inflicted on the body of the injured and the applicant is named in the first information report and as such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the general role has been assigned to the present applicant including the accused persons; the applicant's side has also received injuries and there are cross version of FIRs and this could not be segregated at this stage that which party was the aggressor; the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2024; identically situated co- accused, namely, Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Lalu Yadav has already been enlarged on bail; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Pradeep Yadav @ Deepak Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Shravan