High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18620 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1044 of 2025 Applicant :- Mulayam Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Shubham, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned brief holder for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 599 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) District- Varuna(Commissionrate) Varanasi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. Police Station- Chaubepur, BNS, 3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.09.2024 against unknown person with regard to murder of the father of the informant, however, in the FIR, it is mentioned that mother of the informant witnessed the incident that two unknown persons after committing murder ran away from the spot. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation, on 14.09.2024, parcha no. 2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which has been annexed at page no.28 of the paper book, in which, I.O. noted, from the people of the vicinity, it appears that applicant and four others might have committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that thereafter on 16.09.2024, when statement of the mother of the informant was recorded then she stated that applicant along with co-accused Sanjay and Anil Rajbhar committed the murder of her husband and thereafter applicant has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submitted that if mother of the informant i.e. wife of the deceased would have identified the applicant and two other co- accused persons at the time of commission of alleged crime then applicant along with two others would have definitely been named in the FIR and this fact clearly suggests that when on 14.09.2024 Investigating Officer disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused persons, thereafter she started making allegation against the applicant, co-accused Sanjay and Anil Rajbhar, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of wife of the deceased. 6. He further submitted that except the statement of wife of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 7. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 17.09.2024. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that wife of the deceased was sleeping with the deceased and she witnessed the incident and when her statement was recorded during investigation on 16.09.2024 then she specifically stated that on the exhortation of co-accused Sanjay, applicant opened fire upon the deceased but could not dispute the fact that from her statement, it reflects that she had identified the applicant and other accused persons but in spite of that nobody was named in the FIR. 9. He further could not dispute the fact that even before recording the statement of wife of the deceased, in parcha no. 2 dated 14.02.2024, Investigating Officer had already disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused persons on the basis of suspicion. 10. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. From the record, it reflects that nobody was named in the FIR and as per allegation made in the FIR, two unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased while he was sleeping along with mother of the informant and it reflects that next day i.e. on 14.09.2024, Investigating Officer on the basis of suspicion disclosed the name of applicant along with co-accused Sanjay and Anil Rajbhar. 13. Further, however, record suggest that on 16.09.2024, when statement of wife of the deceased was recorded then she disclosed the name of the applicant and other accused persons and stated that on the exhortation of co-accused Sanjay, applicant caused fire-arm injury to her husband but considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged by her son and it was lodged against unknown person, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if she would have identified the applicant at the time of alleged commission of crime then applicant would have definitely been named in the FIR, cannot be completely brushed aside. 14. Further, as even before recording the statement of wife of the deceased, name of the applicant had already been disclosed by the Investigating Officer under suspicion, therefore, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that as earlier name of the applicant has been disclosed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, subsequently when the statement of wife of the deceased was recorded then she on the instigation of Investigating Officer started making allegation against the applicant and others, cannot be completely disbelieved at this stage. 15. Further, it appears that except the statement of wife of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. 16. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 17.09.2024. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Mulayam Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad