The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Chandu Yadav alias Raghavendra in a murder case registered in Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.
A single-judge bench of Justice Siddharth passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Chandu Yadav Raghvendra.
There is an allegation against the applicant along with three named accused and one unknown accused in the FIR that they have caused injury to a number of persons and one person has subsequently died.
Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of false implication. In the statement of the injured recorded by the Investigating Officer specific role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Dalel Singh, who is the father of the applicant. No role of firing has been assigned to the applicant. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Co-accused Dalel Singh has already been enlarged on bail. The applicant has been in jail since 10.09.2021 and has no criminal history.
The counsel for the informant, Dilip Kumar Pandey, and AGA opposed the bail application and have submitted that the bail of co-accused has been granted on the ground of cross case wherein final report has already been submitted and that the bail of co-accused will not have any implication on the case.
After hearing the rival submissions, the court found that even if the bail granted to co-accused Dalel Singh is ignored. The applicant has a case for bail since the main role has been assigned to co-accused Dalel Singh and not the applicant.
The Court held,
Regarding long incarceration of under trials prisoners in jail due to delay in conclusion of trial, the Apex Court in re: Union of India vs K.A Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 has held in Para 16 of the judgment being reproduced herein below as follows :-
“This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”
“Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs State of UP and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs CBI, passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail,” the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered,
Let the applicant, Chandu Yadav @ Raghvendra, involved in Case under Sections- 307, 323, 504, 506, 302/34 IPC, Police Station- Baradari, District- Bareilly, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties are verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 CrPC 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.
(v) 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 CrPC.
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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.