The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to 60 percent disabled Lal Bahadur Yadav of Azamgarh, accused of murder by shooting.
A Single Bench of Justice Siddharth passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Lal Bahadur Yadav.
The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Lal Bahadur Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Devgaon, District-Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation in the FIR that on 13.08.2020, the informant and her son, Vinod Yadav, were travelling on one motorcycle and her husband, Heera Lal Yadav and her another son, Tej Kumar Yadav, were on another motorcycle they had gone to Lalganj for purchasing medicines and when they were returning back to their house at about 5:00 pm, the co-accused, Dileep Yadav and Surendra Yadav, stopped them in the way and called her husband, Heera Lal Yadav and her son, Tej Kumar Yadav, to their house for talking.
The informant and her other son Vinod Yadav, stayed on the road. During talks, the applicant and co-accused persons fired on her husband, Heera Lal Yadav. Seeing the incident, her son, Tej Kumar Yadav, ran outside the house and was fired upon by Lal Bahadur, the applicant and Ranjeet Yadav, the co-accused. Her husband and son, Tej Kumar Yadav both died.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been assigned the role of causing fatal fire arm injury to the son of informant, Tej Kumar Yadav.
She has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is 60 % disabled.
The post mortem report of the deceased shows that the deceased suffered from firearm wounds of entry of dimension 1 x 1 cm fired from close range since blackening was present around the wound. One exit wound was found on his body.
It has been submitted that the applicant who is 60% disabled from his waist to lower limbs cannot be expected to run behind a young boy and shoot from him at close range. Such a role can be assigned to the co-accused, Ranjeet Yadav, whose bail application has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of the Court. The dimensions of the injuries shows that firing was made on the deceased from a single weapon.
It has further been pointed out that the deceased, Heera Lal Yadav, had a long criminal history. The implication of the applicant has been made because of election and land dispute between the parties. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and has been languishing in jail since 24.08.2022. The trial in the aforesaid case is not likely to be concluded in the near future.
A.G.A and counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and have submitted that bail application of the co-accused, Ranjeet Yadav, has already been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of the Court and therefore, he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, the Court finding force in the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I & Another and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-
(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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C is issued and the applicants fail 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.