AJAY KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant before us is the complainant, who reported the death of his brother in police custody on 12/2/2021. He assails the order granting bail to one of the police constables accused of committing the said offence. The deceased was arrested in connection with a case involving robbery and he was taken into custody on 11/2/2021. Altogether, 19 police officials have been implicated in the offence and chargesheet has been submitted against them. So far as respondent No.3/appellant is concerned, the chargesheet includes allegations of commission of offences under Sec. 34 read with Ss. 302, 330, 331, 218 and Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, by its order passed on 15/2/2023, enlarged respondent No.3 on bail. Mr. Dave, learned senior counsel, representing the appellant, questions the legality of the aforementioned order passed by the High Court. The investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation 'CBI', and Mrs. Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the said agency, also supports the appellant's case.

(3.) The ground on which the present appeal is resisted by Mr. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3, is that his client, being a police constable, was working as a substitute driver, only as a stopgap arrangement, and had no role to play in the alleged commission of the offence on that date. It is primarily on this ground the High Court had enlarged him on bail. We have been taken through the chargesheet and we find that there is a certain role attributed to respondent No.3 therein in the commission of the alleged offences. As per the materials disclosed by the agency, his role was not confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle so far as commission of the alleged offences is concerned. The status report filed before us by the CBI is on the same lines. Of course, these factors would have to be independently assessed at the stage of trial on leading of evidence but we are considering them only for the purpose of determining the question of bail of respondent No.3.