SUGREEV YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.448 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C. and 3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Khairi Ghat, District Bahraich. As against the complicity of the applicant and proposed evidence it is submitted that firstly he is not named in the F.I.R. and secondly the main role has been attributed to the co-accused Ram Surat (non- applicant). From the other side it is pointed out that his name has cropped up in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. But at the same time it is noticed that there are at least three statements of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the F.I.R. it is mentioned that the third person can be identified. But apparently no identification has taken place. Instead the name of third person i.e. of the applicant has been mentioned in the subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He is said to be in jail from 30.08.2008. In respect of gang chart it is said that besides the present case a petty case under Section 4/25 Arms Act has been slapped in the same sequence and there is no other criminal history against him. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Sugreev Yadav) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned. A notice of this bail application was given on 31.03.2009 to the State but surprisingly learned A.G.A. says that no instructions could be received after a month. Let such matters be brought to the notice of Government Advocate who may issue directions for maintaining record of such cases in which instructions are not received from the police station even after a long time and thereafter necessary action may be taken against the officials concerned.