New Delhi, June 22 (ILNS): The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered the release of Samajwadi Party leader Chhavi Nath Yadav on bail. The order was passed by Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, while hearing a petition from the politician from Pratapgarh district.
The appeal was preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated January 5, 2021 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, passed in second bail application in case under Sections – 147, 148, 149, 327, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) 3 (1) (Chha), 3 (2) 5, 3(2)5a SC/ST Act, Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh whereby the bail application of the applicant had been rejected.
The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and further submitted that initially the FIR was lodged by the informant against the applicant and co-accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) and 3 (2) 5a SC/ST but during investigation without any evidence the case was amended and two sections were added, i.e., Section 3 (2) (VII) and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act.
The counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per FIR the incident took place on September 10, 2020 and FIR was lodged on September 11, 2020 and FIR was delayed by 30 hrs but no plausible explanation has been given. Although in the case three persons were injured, but as per perusal of the injury report it transpires that all the injuries are simple in nature.
He further submitted that although as per allegation the applicant as well as other persons were armed with deadly weapons but no deadly weapon was used by the applicant as well as co-accused.
It is further submitted that other co-accused have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court only on the basis of criminal history. The bail application of the applicant is rejected by the lower Court.
Counsel for the applicant said that only on the basis of criminal history bail application could not be rejected but role of the applicant should be seen before disposal of the bail. Applicant is in jail since September 12, 2020 although the appellant have criminal history of 37 cases.
It is clearly explained by the applicant and further submitted that in most of the cases either the appellant is acquitted or he is on bail. Counsel further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.
The counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant have several criminal history and if he is released on bail then he will further indulge in criminal activities and he can also extend threat to the witnesses.
Since, there is a history of several cases, hence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Additional Government Advocate for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that the offence is serious in nature and applicant has no ground to be released on bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.
“After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of applicant”, the Court observed.
The Court set aside order dated January 5, 2021 and allowed the Appeal.
The Court ordered that, “Let applicant (Chhavi Nath Yadav) be enlarged on bail in the case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice”.
(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.
(ii) The appellant 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 through her 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.
(iv) 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court onthe 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 appellant 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. ILNS\AP\SJ