Ram Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, vide orders dated

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co- accused, Suresh Yadav whose bail application was rejected, preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6746 of 2024, which was disposed of on

16.05.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the observation that no interference was required in the order of rejection of the bail application of Suresh Yadav, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Suresh Yadav, co-accused may file afresh bail application before the High Court in the changed circumstances or if the trial gets prolonged due to reasons not attributable to the applicant or co-accused. Thereafter, co-accused, Suresh Yadav filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10827 of 2024 before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the period of incarceration in jail since

14.10.2029 and that all the witnesses of fact were examined, allowed the bail application of Suresh Yadav vide order dated 11.11.2024. Counsel for the applicant further submits that out of 16 accused, 14 accused having similar role, have been granted bail and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure- 32 of this bail application, which are as follow:- "1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8151 of 2021, Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide orders dated 03.08.2021 and 05.08.2021;

2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2449 of 2020, Atul Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

3. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3675 of 2020, Abhitej Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3367 of 2020, Harshit Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

5. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12069 of 2022, Gaya Bux Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 12.12.2022;

6. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1038 of 2023, Lavkush Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

7. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5920 of 2023, Ram Sumer Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

8. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5995 of 2023, Jhurha Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

9. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4314 of 2023, Manu Kumar Bari Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 21.07.2023;

10. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1772 of 2023, Saurabh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 21.08.2023;

11. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5132 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 29.08.2023;

12. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11535 of 2023, Sachin Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated

10.10.2023;

13. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10366 of 2022, Ram Krishna Yadav @ R.K. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 11.11.2024; and

14. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10827 of 2022, Suresh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that sixteen persons have been assigned the role of assault, which is general in nature and ten injuries were caused to the deceased, out of which six injuries appear to be fatal, but it is not specified that as to who caused the fatal injuries. He also submits that applicant has been in jail since 06.11.2019 i.e. more than five years and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109; Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Nazeeb, (2021) 3 SCC

713. He has also submitted that fact witnesses have been examined and there is no question of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on these grounds as well as on the ground of parity. He also submits that criminal history of the applicant has been mentioned/explained in paragraphs-42, 43, 44 and 45 of the bail application and in all the cases, he has been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the trial court and the bail orders have been annexed with the bail application.

6. On the other hand, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that applicant and co-accused are not cooperating in the trial and P.W.-1 was cross-examined for 22 days, P.W.-2 was cross-examined for 18 days. Similarly, P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were cross- examined for 35, 32, 05, 08, 17, 60, 25 and 31 days. He has further submitted that it is the applicant and co-accused who are delaying the trial and for such long span the cross-examination was undertaken by them, which indicates that they are not cooperating in the trial. He has relied upon the bail order of co- accused, Suresh Yadav, wherein it has been observed that the Sessions Judge is required to conclude the trial at the earliest and no preferential treatment would be given to either of the parties. In case the concerned Sessions Judge fails to conclude the trial by doing day-to-day trial, adverse inference shall be drawn against him/her. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758 and on the strength of the aforesaid judgement, he has submitted that at the fag end of the trial, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

7. Learned AGA by opposing the prayer for bail, has pointed out that the trial is already going to be concluded in near future because the fact witnesses have been examined and the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

8. I have considered the argument of counsel for the complainant and what I find that in his counter affidavit, he is not able to point out that at any point of time the applicant and co-accused were responsible to delay the trial and in case they were doing lengthy cross-examination and the same was allowed by the trial court, then what wrong the applicant and co- accused have committed. He also could not point out that at any point of time, the trial court objected that why such lengthy cross-examination was being done by the accused side. Cross-examination was allowed by the trial court and if it is lengthy, then the accused cannot be held responsible to delay the trial unless it is pointed out by the trial court, which is not the present case.

9. The other argument of counsel for the complainant that the trial is at the fag end, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail, is also not sustainable for the reason that out of sixteen accused having similar role, 14 accused had been granted bail by this Court. The other important fact is also relevant to mention here that applicant has been in jail since 06.11.2019 i.e. more than five years have passed and the fact witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no question of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses.

10. At this stage, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3606, wherein it has been observed that appellant amongst other accused were in custody for eight and a half years. The prosecution evidence was over and the statement of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the said case of Paras Ram Vishoi, was granted bail in spite of the fact that the trial was at the fag end, therefore, the case of the applicant is at par with that case because the applicant has undergone in jail for more than five years and all the fact witnesses have been examined.

11. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that co-accused Suresh Yadav including thirteen other co-accused having similar role, have been granted bail by this Court; the argument that applicant has been in jail for the last more than five years supported by the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dataram and Rabi Prakash (supra), the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

12. Let applicant Arkit Yadav alias Somu alias Somu Yadav be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) 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. (ii) The applicant 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. (iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. 13. It is made clear that observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will, in no way, be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order. . Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co- accused, Suresh Yadav whose bail application was rejected, preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6746 of 2024, which was disposed of on

16.05.2024 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the observation that no interference was required in the order of rejection of the bail application of Suresh Yadav, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Suresh Yadav, co-accused may file afresh bail application before the High Court in the changed circumstances or if the trial gets prolonged due to reasons not attributable to the applicant or co-accused. Thereafter, co-accused, Suresh Yadav filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10827 of 2024 before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the period of incarceration in jail since

14.10.2029 and that all the witnesses of fact were examined, allowed the bail application of Suresh Yadav vide order dated 11.11.2024. Counsel for the applicant further submits that out of 16 accused, 14 accused having similar role, have been granted bail and their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure- 32 of this bail application, which are as follow:- "1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8151 of 2021, Ram Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide orders dated 03.08.2021 and 05.08.2021;

2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2449 of 2020, Atul Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

3. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3675 of 2020, Abhitej Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

4. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3367 of 2020, Harshit Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 28.01.2022;

5. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12069 of 2022, Gaya Bux Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 12.12.2022;

6. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1038 of 2023, Lavkush Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

7. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5920 of 2023, Ram Sumer Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

8. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5995 of 2023, Jhurha Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 04.07.2023;

9. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4314 of 2023, Manu Kumar Bari Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 21.07.2023;

10. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1772 of 2023, Saurabh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 21.08.2023;

11. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5132 of 2023, Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 29.08.2023;

12. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11535 of 2023, Sachin Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated

10.10.2023;

13. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10366 of 2022, Ram Krishna Yadav @ R.K. Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 11.11.2024; and

14. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10827 of 2022, Suresh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, vide order dated 11.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that sixteen persons have been assigned the role of assault, which is general in nature and ten injuries were caused to the deceased, out of which six injuries appear to be fatal, but it is not specified that as to who caused the fatal injuries. He also submits that applicant has been in jail since 06.11.2019 i.e. more than five years and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1109; Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Nazeeb, (2021) 3 SCC

713. He has also submitted that fact witnesses have been examined and there is no question of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on these grounds as well as on the ground of parity. He also submits that criminal history of the applicant has been mentioned/explained in paragraphs-42, 43, 44 and 45 of the bail application and in all the cases, he has been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the trial court and the bail orders have been annexed with the bail application.

6. On the other hand, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that applicant and co-accused are not cooperating in the trial and P.W.-1 was cross-examined for 22 days, P.W.-2 was cross-examined for 18 days. Similarly, P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were cross- examined for 35, 32, 05, 08, 17, 60, 25 and 31 days. He has further submitted that it is the applicant and co-accused who are delaying the trial and for such long span the cross-examination was undertaken by them, which indicates that they are not cooperating in the trial. He has relied upon the bail order of co- accused, Suresh Yadav, wherein it has been observed that the Sessions Judge is required to conclude the trial at the earliest and no preferential treatment would be given to either of the parties. In case the concerned Sessions Judge fails to conclude the trial by doing day-to-day trial, adverse inference shall be drawn against him/her. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758 and on the strength of the aforesaid judgement, he has submitted that at the fag end of the trial, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

7. Learned AGA by opposing the prayer for bail, has pointed out that the trial is already going to be concluded in near future because the fact witnesses have been examined and the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

8. I have considered the argument of counsel for the complainant and what I find that in his counter affidavit, he is not able to point out that at any point of time the applicant and co-accused were responsible to delay the trial and in case they were doing lengthy cross-examination and the same was allowed by the trial court, then what wrong the applicant and co- accused have committed. He also could not point out that at any point of time, the trial court objected that why such lengthy cross-examination was being done by the accused side. Cross-examination was allowed by the trial court and if it is lengthy, then the accused cannot be held responsible to delay the trial unless it is pointed out by the trial court, which is not the present case.

9. The other argument of counsel for the complainant that the trial is at the fag end, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail, is also not sustainable for the reason that out of sixteen accused having similar role, 14 accused had been granted bail by this Court. The other important fact is also relevant to mention here that applicant has been in jail since 06.11.2019 i.e. more than five years have passed and the fact witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no question of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses.

10. At this stage, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 3606, wherein it has been observed that appellant amongst other accused were in custody for eight and a half years. The prosecution evidence was over and the statement of all the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the said case of Paras Ram Vishoi, was granted bail in spite of the fact that the trial was at the fag end, therefore, the case of the applicant is at par with that case because the applicant has undergone in jail for more than five years and all the fact witnesses have been examined.

11. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that co-accused Suresh Yadav including thirteen other co-accused having similar role, have been granted bail by this Court; the argument that applicant has been in jail for the last more than five years supported by the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dataram and Rabi Prakash (supra), the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

12. Let applicant Arkit Yadav alias Somu alias Somu Yadav be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) 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. (ii) The applicant 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. (iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. 13. It is made clear that observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will, in no way, be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order. . Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh, J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench