High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashok Yadav v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 20692 of 2005  RD-AH 8936 (4 May 2006)
Crl Misc 2nd Bail Application No. 20692 of 2005
Ashok Yadav...Vs....... State of U.P.
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.
This is the 2nd bail application filed by the applicant Ashok Yadav with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 380 of 2005, under Section 364-A I.P.C., P.S. Mauranipur district Jhansi.
The Criminal Misc 1st Bail application No. 13669 of 2005 has been rejected by this court on 29.9.2005 after considering the case of the applicant on its merit.
Heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki learned learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant: -
(i)That in the present case the applicant is in jail since 10.4.2005. It is alleged that the first informant came to Jhansi from Delhi. His driver met him at the railway station. The first informant was accompanied by his wife, son and daughter. They proceeded towards Khajuraho boarding in a Qualis Car, which was over taken by a Tata Sumo. The applicant and 4 other unknown co-accused persons who were armed with country made pistol and gun they took out the son of the first informant from the car and threw him in the Tata Sumo, he was kidnapped and taken towards Chhatarpur, they were chased by the first informant but he could not rescue his life. The kidnapping was done for the purpose of realization of ransom. The alleged kidnapped person has been recovered from the company of the applicant and co-accused Jagdish by the police. The applicant and co-accused were identified by the first informant and his wife.
(ii)That according to the F.I.R. itself the applicant was known to the first informant and other. The participation of the applicant was improbable where four unknown persons also committed the alleged offence.
(iii)The statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He repeated same story as given in the F.I.R. He stated that the applicant was living in the same colony where he was residing. It shows that there was enmity between the applicant and the first informant that is why the applicant has been falsely implicated.
(iv)That the offence under Section 364-A I.P.C. is not made out as there was no demand of ransom. There was a presumption that the son of the first informant was kidnapped for realization of ransom.
(v)That the applicant had a Tata Sumo vehicle which has been purchased for carrying tourists to Khajuraho. The applicant is living in the same colony where the first informant is residing. The first informant is AGM in Khajuraho Airport. The applicant is a contractor . On the order given by the first informant he has supplied 150 trolley of sand, but its payment has not been made, in spite of repeated request made by the applicant. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedents.
(vi)That in the present case the statement of the first informant has been recorded in the trial court as P.W. 1. There are material contradictions in his statement recorded in the court and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He clearly stated that he was not in a position to say whether co-accused Bhooram was involved in the commission of the offence. He also stated in his cross examination that he had never met with the applicant prior to the alleged offence. He also stated that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence all the accused persons were covering their faces, but the applicant was driving the Tata Sumo. He was apprised about the applicant by the driver Anandi and he has disclosed the name of the father of the applicant also. He has clearly stated that he has disclosed the name of the applicant as the same of driver Ananadi and co-accused Jagdish. According to statement of the first informant recorded in the trial court it appears that the applicant was falsely implicated, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
It is opposed by the learned A.G.A by submitting that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. The alleged kidnapped boy has been recovered from his possession. The statement of the first informant has been recorded in the trial court. The trial is at the advance stage. It shall not be proper to release the applicant on bail. After considering the contradiction, if any, given in the statement of the first informant recorded in the court and there is no new good ground to release the applicant on bail. The offence is of grave in nature.
The grounds taken by the applicant in the present bail application it appears that there is no new good ground to release the applicant on bail. The witnesses are being examined in the trial court. It is not proper stage to evaluate the statement of the first informant recorded in the trial court and it is not proper stage to consider any contradiction came in his statement because if it is evaluated and considered it may affect the result of the trial.
After considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and considering the nature of the offence and its gravity and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.