High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 66 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135776 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23435 of 2025 Applicant :- Komal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Shukla,Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Komal Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2) BNS, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, The bail application of the applicant was rejected by Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, vide order dated 18.04.2025. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that on 03.03.2025 at about 07:00 p.m., the named accused persons has committed murder of father of the first informant namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav by sharp edged weapon at his throat when he was returning from Kudwan Bazar, near the Telephone Exchange on account of their old enmity with him. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 18.03.2025. He has criminal antecedent of 13 cases except present case, which has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of bail application and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of doubt and suspicion. As per the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained three incised wound and one lacerated wound. The cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has surfaced during course of investigation in the statements of informant Rohit Yadav and other witnesses namely Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Ram Asrey Yadav and Ashok Yadav. It is next submitted that the alleged incident took place in the dark night and no source of light was present there as such, no body has seen the incident. It is further submitted that neither the applicant was arrested from the spot nor any recovery has been made from his possession or his pointing out. After completing investigation, investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons. There are various contradiction in the statements of witnesses, informant and the FIR version. The allegation are general in nature and no specific role and weapon has been assigned either to the applicant or the other accused persons and in absence of specific role of assault, no offence is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections and the entire prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. Hence, bail has been prayed for. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav were the eye- witnesses and they specifically stated that applicant and three others named accused persons committed the murder of the deceased and if the applicant is released on bail, a wrong massage would go in the society and the trust of the public would be shattered, and, therefore, no case is made out for bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 7. He further submitted that however, during investigation, when the statements of two witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav were recorded then they claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and according to them, applicant and three others made assault upon the deceased but their statements do not appear to be convincing and even their statements were recorded after more than seven days. He further submitted that even witness Shailendra Kumar Yadav was the real brother of the deceased and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement. 8. He further submitted that it is a case of blind murder and only due to reason that applicant was having friendship with co-accused Rahul Yadav, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that motive of crime was against co-accused Rahul Yadav. 9. However, as per allegation, due to the assault made by applicant and others deceased died and two witnesses Shailendra Kumar Yadav and Ram Asarey Yadav claimed themselves to be eye- witnesses and they disclosed the name of the applicant and other co-accused but applicant was not named in the FIR and even before recording statements of above eye-witnesses, his name had already been disclosed by the informant. 10. Further, even both the eye-witnesses appear to be chance witnesses and their statements do not appear to be convincing. Further, witness Shailendra Kumar Yadav is the brother of the deceased. 11. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the accused-applicant, Komal Yadav involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable 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. ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity. iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. 4. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad