The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of SP MLA Ramakant Yadav in connection with the deaths in the Azamgarh spurious liquor case.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ramakant Yadav.
The bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case under Sections 272/273 I.P.C and Section 60(A) Excise Act, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against one Rangesh Kumar Yadav and some unknown persons, under Section 60(A) Excise Act and Sections 272/273 IPC.
No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. After the arrest of co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav, he has disclosed names of several co-accused persons but the applicant was not named. No co-accused has disclosed the name of applicant and similarly, no witness has made any statement regarding involvement of applicant.
It was submitted that applicant is a renowned political leader and he has been Member of Parliament for four terms and Member of Legislative Assembly for five terms and he is sitting M.LA from Samajwadi Party and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to political enmity.
It was submitted that earlier the applicant was elected as Member of Parliament from Bharatiya Janata Party and later on, he joined Samajwadi Party and he is being targeted due to that reason.
It is further submitted that involvement of the applicant has been shown after 8 months of the incident and even on the basis of nature of accusation, shown against the applicant, no case under Section 272/273 I.P.C and Section 60(A) of Excise Act, is made out against the applicant. The first information report was registered on 22.02.2022 and the name of the applicant was introduced for the first time on 20.09.2022.
Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2022 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer of bail application and submitted that during investigation of the case, involvement of applicant was revealed and that applicant has been charge-sheeted on the basis of sufficient evidence. In the alleged incident, 9 persons have died by consuming spurious liquor, purchased from the licensed shop, which was in the name of co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav but its actual control is with the applicant.
In similar cases, the bail application of the applicant for offences under Section 60(A) of Excise Act read with Sections 272/273 I.P.C, has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of the Court.
It is further submitted that the applicant is a hardened criminal and he has a long criminal history of 52 cases.
The Court noted that,
The perusal of record shows that the first information report was lodged on 22.02.2022, under Section 60(A) Excise Act and Sections 272/273 I.P.C against Rangesh Kumar Yadav and some unknown persons, alleging that the police received an information that some persons have purchased desi liquor from the shop situated at town Mahul and by consuming the said liquor, some of those persons have lost their eye-sight while some of them have died due to consumption of the said liquor. The police conducted a raid at the said liquor shop and four cartoons having 180 quarter bottles each and 6525 quarter bottles lying in 145 cartoons, having spurious liquor, were recovered. Two litres of spurious liquor, found in two bottles, was also recovered. The licensee of the said shop is Rangesh Kumar Yadav.
It is correct that applicant-accused is not named in the first information report and that co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav also did not disclose the name of applicant-accused and that his involvement in the incident was shown after about 8 months of the lodging of the first information report but the case of prosecution is that the de facto owner/proprietor of the said liquor shop is applicant-accused, who has taken the licence of the said shop in the name of co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav.
During investigation, some of the witnesses have mentioned that in fact the said liquor shop was being run by applicant-accused in the name of co-accused Rangesh Kumar Yadav and that the applicant-accused was involved in the business of preparation and selling of spurious liquor but due to terror of the applicant-accused, no one from public dares to name the applicant-accused. In this connection, statements of Khedu, Sangeeta Rani and Rajendra Bind were referred.
It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that some persons have lost their lives by consuming the liquor purchased from the said shop and some of the persons have lost their eye-sight. Applicant-accused has a long criminal history of 52 cases, including cases of murder and other heinous offences.
“It was shown that similar allegations were levelled against the applicant accused in Crime under Section 60(A) Excise Act, Section 272, 273, 34 I.P.C, P.S Phoolpur, District Azamgarh and in another Case under Sections 272, 273, 34, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 60(A) Excise Act, P.S Ahraula, District Azamgarh.
In those cases, the bail application of applicant-accused has already been rejected by the Court vide order dated 28.02.2023. It was further shown that against the said bail rejection order, applicant-accused has approached the Apex Court by filing S.L.P, wherein, vide order dated 28.07.2023, it was held by the Apex Court that no case is made out to enlarge the petitioner (applicant) on bail and the petition was disposed of. However, certain observations, made by the Court, were expunged. Thus, it is apparent that in similar cases, the bail rejection order of applicant-accused has already been upheld by the Apex Court.
In view of aforesaid and considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, no case for bail is made out at this stage”, the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.