SURENDRA KUMAR 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.451 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Tikair Nagar, District Barabanki. As against the complicity of the applicant it is submitted that the F.I.R. in question has been lodged against 24 persons by name. Concededly the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name was added in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that there are cross cases wherein two persons have died and on the other side while one person has died from the applicant side. He is said to be in jail from 27.12.2008. In para 20 it is claimed that there is no 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 applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and keeping in view cross cases wherein from both the sides there are injured persons and at this stage it is not ascertainable as to who was the aggressor, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Surendra Kumar 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.