# Uday Pratap @ Dau (In Jail) v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 268
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-14
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 43160 of 2020
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uday-pratap-dau-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-45561
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Case of circumstantial evidence-name of
Applicant
surfaced
from
co-accused
statement-Applicant's presence at place
where deceased consuming liquor-last
seen
together-viscera
report
shows
poison-Bail rejected. Direction issued to
courts below in the State of U.P. -to
attend the issue of criminal antecedants of
accused while deciding bail application
and to record complete detail of cases if
any.

Bail Rejected. (E-9)

## Text

268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself
deems it fit to do so in the interest of
justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not
indulge
in
any
criminal
activity
or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

(5)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(6)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing

10. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

11. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2020)12ILR A268
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 43160 of 2020

Uday Pratap @ Dau ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satendra Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A., Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, Sri
Prabhash Pandey

Case of circumstantial evidence-name of
Applicant
surfaced
from
co-accused
statement-Applicant's presence at place
where deceased consuming liquor-last
seen
together-viscera
report
shows
poison-Bail rejected. Direction issued to
courts below in the State of U.P. -to
attend the issue of criminal antecedants of
accused while deciding bail application
and to record complete detail of cases if
any.

Bail Rejected. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya
Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned
Brief Holder for the State and perused the
material on record.

2. This bail application under Section
439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has
been
filed
by
the
applicant
Uday
Pratap@Dau, seeking enlargement on bail
during trial in connection with Case Crime
No. 12 of 2020, under Sections 364, 302,
201, 120B and 34 I.P.C., registered at P.S.
Phareeha, District Firozabad.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the present case is a case of
circumstantial evidence. It is argued that
12 All. Uday Pratap @ Dau Vs. State of U.P.
269
Pradeep Yadav@Kaloo who is the son of the
first informant, went away from the house
31.1.2020 at about 7.00 P.M. and since then
went missing. It is further argued that the first
information report of the present case was
lodged after a great delay as was lodged on
5.2.2020 by Rajveer Singh the father of Pradeep
Yadav@Kaloo. Learned counsel for the
applicant further argued that the applicant is not
named in the F.I.R. and during the course of
search the first informant sent his younger son
Dinesh to know regarding whereabouts of
Pradeep Yadav@Kaloo on which Dinesh came
back to home and informed that Sunil Chauhan
the owner of motorcycle agency, Rajveer
Singh@Singhania, Tej Prakash and 2-3 other
unknown persons were sitting at Honda
Motorcycle Agency, Fariha, Firozabad and
consuming liquor. On seeing this Dinesh came
back to home but Pradeep Yadav@Kaloo did
not return back. It is argued that the first
informant states that he went to the police
station to given information about missing of
his son, in consequence of which the police
went to see the C.C.T.V. footage installed near
the agency where the said persons were
consuming liquor and saw that his son was seen
going out at about 08.08 P.M. along with Sunil
Chauhan. It is argued that in the statement of
the first informant recorded under Section
161Cr.P.C., copy of which has been annexed as
annexure no. 2 to the affidavit filed in support
of bail application, he has stated the same
version as that mentioned in the First
Information
Report.
It
is
argued
that
subsequently co-accused Tej Pratap was
arrested and he gave his confessional statement
to the police and also named the applicant
therein. Copy of the said statement has been
placed before the Court which is annexed as
annexure no. 5 to the affidavit.

4. It is then argued that later on the
applicant was arrested on 18.3.2020 and
one knife and Rs.190/- were recovered
from him. Learned counsel has placed post
mortem report of the deceased and has
argued that the doctor could not ascertain
the cause of death and as such viscera was
preserved. The viscera was chemically
examined and the report is annexed as
annexure no. 10 to the affidavit, from
which it transpires that it contained Organo
Chloro insecticide and Ethyl Alcohol
poison. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that in so far as the applicant is
concerned, he is not named in the F.I.R.,
his implication has surfaced for the first
time in the statement of co-accused persons
and
there
is
no
recovery
of
any
incriminating material either from pointing
out or possession of the applicant. Learned
counsel has placed para-30 of the affidavit
filed in support of bail application and has
argued that the applicant has no criminal
history which reads as follows:-

"(30) That it is categorically
submitted here that accused applicant is not
having any criminal history in the record of
police nor he is a previously convicted
person in other words accused applicant is
a man of clean antecedents and he is not
indulged in any anti-social activities."

5. Per contra, learned brief holder for
the State and learned counsel for the first
informant vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail. It is argued while placing the
relevant transcript of C.C.T.V. footage that
the applicant was also seen moving out
from the place where the deceased and
other co-accused persons were consuming
liquor. The applicant was also seen together
with the deceased having liquor by Dinesh,
the younger brother of the deceased which
is mentioned specifically in the First
Information Report and in the statement of
the first informant recorded under Section
161Cr.P.C. It is argued that all the accused
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons in a clandestine manner gave
poisonous substance to the deceased as a
result of which he died, which also gets
fortified from the report of chemical
analyst from which poison has been found
in the viscera.

6. Learned A.G.A. while refuting the
averment of criminal antecedents of the
applicant, has argued that the said averment is a
false averment made in the affidavit filed in
support of bail application. He has argued that
the applicant is involved in seven other criminal
cases and even history sheet has been opened.
The details of involvement of the applicant in
seven other criminal cases have been placed
before the Court which are as follows:

(i) Case Crime No. 1072 of 2015,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353,
334 I.P.C. and 336 Public Representative Act,
P.S.- Narkhi, District Firozabad,

(ii) Case Crime No. 917 of 2017,
under Sections 60 Excise Act and 420
I.P.C., P.S.- Narkhi,District Firozabad,

(iii) Case Crime No. 472 of 2018,
under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.-
Narkhi,District Firozabad,

(iv) Case Crime No. 616 of 2018,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323,
324, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Narkhi,
District Firozabad,

(v) Case Crime No. 651 of 2018,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323,
324, 504, 506, 326 I.P.C., P.s.- Narkhi,
District Firozabad,

(vi) Case Crime No. 140 of 2020,
under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S.
Fariha, District Firozabad and

(vii) Case Crime No. 196 of
2020, under Sections 4/25 Arms Act, P.S.-
Aitmadaula, District Agra.

7. After having heard learned
counsels for the parties and perusing the
records it is apparent that criminal
antecedents of the applicant have not been
disclosed. The affidavit in support of bail
application is of no one else but Sauraj
Singh, who claims himself to be the brother
of the applicant. The C.C.T.V. as has been
seen and a transcript has been drawn in the
case diary is a piece of evidence which
cannot be manufactured. The presence of
the applicant at the place where the
deceased was consuming liquor with the
applicant and other co-accused persons
shows conclusively they being last seen
together. The report of Forensic Lab even
shows that the viscera had Organo Chloro
insecticide and Ethyl Alcohol poison.

8. Looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
evidence and gravity of offence and
specially keeping in view of the fact that in
the viscera report presence of Organo
Chloro insecticide and Ethyl Alcohol
poison was found and long criminal
antecedents of the applicant, I do not think
it to be a fit case to release the applicant on
bail.

9. The bail application is rejected.

10. On the point of criminal history,
this Court has perused the free copy of the
order dated 24.9.2020 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6,
Firozabad in Bail Application No. 1403 of
2020, CNR No. UPFD03867-2020, Uday
Pratap urf Dau vs. State of U.P. by which
the bail application of the applicant has
been rejected by the court below. The same
is annexed as annexure no. 11 to the
affidavit. The said order does not attend
about the criminal history of the applicant.
In the said order while mentioning the
arguments as raised on behalf of the
applicant,
it
has
specifically
been
12 All. Indar Vs. State of U.P.
271
mentioned that the applicant is "not a
previous convict." There is no discussion
by the court about the said argument in the
order rejecting bail of the applicant.

11. Not only in this case but in many
other cases it is seen that there is an
averment made that the applicant/accused
is not involved in any other criminal case
before this Court. The order rejecting bail
by the courts below is silent about the
criminal
antecedents
of
the
applicant/accused but on the basis of
instructions
of
learned
Additional
Government Advocate of this Court or on
the basis of instruction of learned counsels
for the first informant, it transpires that the
applicant/accused has previous criminal
history. When the learned counsels are
countered with the same it becomes
embarrassing for them and is also an
impediment in deciding the said bail
application due to the non-disclosure of the
criminal history of the accused. Although
the criminal antecedents of the accused are
not the sole and decisive factor for decision
of bail applications but the same needs to
be considered while deciding an application
for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as per
the legislative mandate of Section 437
Cr.P.C.

12. This Court directs the courts below in
the State of Uttar Pradesh to attend the issue of
criminal antecedent(s) of accused persons while
deciding bail applications under Section 439
Cr.P.C. and give a complete detail of the
criminal
antecedent(s),
if
any,
of
the
applicant(s)/accused before them or record the
fact that there are no criminal antecedent(s) of
the said person(s) if there are none.

13. The Registrar General of this
Court is directed to communicate this order
to all the District and Sessions Judges of
the State, who shall ensure the immediate
implementation of this order by the courts
in their jurisdiction.

14. The Registrar General shall ensure
compliance of this order in its true spirit
and submit a report of compliance before
this Court by 29.1.2021.

15. List this case on 29.1.2021 for
further orders.

16. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad.

17. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

18.The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity of such computerized copy of the
order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2020)12ILR A271
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1987

Indar ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Krishna Deo Mishra, Sri Trilok Sharma, Sri
Birendra Kumar Pandey, Sri Rajesh Chandra
Gupta, Sri S.P.S. Raghav, Sri V.K. Ojha