Allahabad High Court
Devendra Yadav Alias Jaggu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 June, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100247
Reserved On:- 23.06.2025
Delivered On:- 27.06.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20060 of 2025
Applicant :- Devendra Yadav Alias Jaggu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Imran,Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. With regard to the incident which took place on 03.02.2020, F.I.R has been lodged by the informant on 24.03.2025 regarding the commission of offence of abduction of a person for the purpose of extracting ransom amount.
3. It is alleged in the instant F.I.R that the informant is elder brother of Akhand Pratap Singh who died in the year 2000. Post the death of Akhand Pratap Singh an F.I.R was lodged wherein the applicant and his brother along with two others were named as accused. The applicant was acquitted by the Sessions Court in the year 2016 and until 06.01.2020 no Criminal Appeal was filed against acquittal. It is further alleged in the F.I.R that on 03.02.2020 the informant was intercepted by the applicant and other co-accused who threatened him to withdraw the appeal filed in the High Court or else face dire consequences. It is further alleged that the informant was only released from the custody of the applicant after his son handed over a copy of the writ (Criminal Appeal) to the applicant along with Rs. 1,30,000/- (one lakh thirty thousand).
4. The instant F.I.R was lodged on 24.03.2025 while the alleged date of incident is 03.02.2020 the delay in lodging of F.I.R is more than five years one month. There is no substantial or satisfactory explanation in the narration of the F.I.R regarding the delay in lodging of F.I.R. Moreover, as the applicant is a politician associated with Samajwadi Party, it is difficult to comprehend how and why the informant was hesitant in lodging of F.I.R earlier.
5. The informant of the instant F.I.R alleges that he was threatened to discontinue the pairavi in the appeal filed before this court but there is nothing in record to show that the appeal could not continue due to lack of pairavi from the informant. Moreover, the informant had filed the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C after a delay of more than four years from the order of acquittal, the appeal till date is marked as defective and no attempt has been made by the informant to cure the defect till date. Even prior to lodging of this F.I.R the informant did not care to file even a listing application in the Appeal filed by him in the year 2000.
6. The instant F.I.R has been lodged under Sections- 147, 149, 341, 323, 506 and 364-A of I.P.C. It is submitted before this court that as there is no evidence regarding force or violence which could be otherwise seen in an injury, therefore, a bare reading of the F.I.R does not substantiate the allegation under Sections 147 and 149 of I.P.C.
7. The informant of the instant F.I.R alleges that he was threatened to discontinue the pairavi in the appeal filed before this court but there is nothing in record to show that the appeal could not continue due to lack of pairavi from the informant. Moreover, the informant had filed the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C after a delay of more than four years from the order of acquittal, the appeal till date is marked as defective and no attempt has been made by the informant to cure the defect till date. Even prior to lodging of this F.I.R the informant did not care to file even a listing application in the appeal filed by him in the year 2020.
8. Regarding Section 364A of I.P.C it is submitted before this Court that as there is no evidence regarding demand of ransom and even in the allegation it is not alleged that the applicant life was under threat or that the applicant was under danger of getting hurt. The narration of the F.I.R means that the applicant threatened the informant to refrain from doing pairavi before this Court and after receiving a copy of the Appeal was satisfied and released the informant. The allegations alleged in the F.I.R. are not supported by any kind of medical report or treatment prescriptions not has the informant alleged any injury.
9. The entire allegation is absurd as the applicant understands that taking a copy of appeal pending before this Court could not have affected the case in any manner whatsoever. That too an appeal which was filed after a delay of more than four years and till date is marked as defective. Even after the applicant was taken into custody, the informant has neither made any effort to cure the defect in his criminal appeal nor has even filed a listing application before this court in the criminal appeal. The same can be seen in the status report which is annexed in the previous paragraph.
10. The entire narration of F.I.R. is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and is lodged after a substantial delay. There is no allegation regarding seeking ransom and the alleged abduction has not been reported till date anywhere. The informant has never moved any complaint/application to any authority whatsoever since the occurrence of the incident and claims to have lodged this F.I.R. because according to him the administration has launched a scheme against the applicant which encourage the informant to join the bandwagon and lodged the instant F.I.R.
11. The entire prosecution story is false and is systematically arranged conspiracy against the applicant to ensure that the applicant is harassed to the extent that he remains in custody for a long duration of time. Astonishingly since 13.06.2024 on the eve of getting enlarged on bail in a particular matter, before being released a fresh F.I.R. gets lodged against the applicant.
12. The applicant before this Court is a member of Samajwadi Party and holds a substantial public support in Farrukhabad. The applicant had been a president of Samawadi Yuv Jan Sabha (2011 to 2014) and was District Vice President of Samajwadi Party from 2018 to 2022. The applicant owing to his superlative social work has gained a substantial amount of popularity and public support over a period of time which has become unpleasant for the current M.L.A from Bhojpur Vidhan Sabha Farrukhabad (Nagendra Rathor). Over a period of time the applicant has gained in popularity and stature to the extent that he has become inconvenient for local politicians who are associated with Bhartiya Janta Party.
13. On 12.06.2024 an F.IR. vide Case Crime No.198 of 2024, was lodged against the applicant under Sections 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 (herein after referred as “Gangsters Act’) P.S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. Immediately next day the applicant was taken into custody from his home on 13.06.2024. There were four cases mentioned in the Gang Chart against the applicant, even at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act against the applicant, he had previously been on bail on two cases mentioned in the gang chart whereas no warrant summons were issued in other cases after submission of charge sheet. The base cases mentioned in the gang chart and F.IR. vide Case Crime No.198 of 2024 under Sections 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 P.S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad are mentioned as follows:
a. Case Crime No.216 of 2017, U/ss 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh– this FIR. was lodged as a cross F.I.R. after the applicant had lodged an F.IR vide Case Crime No.215 0f 2017, U/ss 506, 504, 307, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. against Kushal Parihar, Achal Parihar and four others. In order to retaliate vengefully Shri Kushal Singh Parihar lodged an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.216 of 2017, Under Section 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh against the brother of the applicant along with the applicant and twelve others. After investigation no offence was found to be committed under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. and instead the I.0. submitted the charge sheet under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. the applicant was granted bail by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on o4.07.2017. It is humbly submitted before this Court that the conclusion of the investigation itself shows that allegations as alleged were found to be false during investigation.
b. Case Crime No.889 of 2018, U/ss 307, 406, 452, 506, 504, 323, 148, 147 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh-this F.I.R. was lodged on 13.11.2018 by Smt. Anita wife of Shri Pankaj Rai Yadav. Shri Pankaj Yadav is brother of the applicant and the informant (Smt. Anita) is sister-in-law of the applicant. The allegations narrated in the FIR. are arisen out of family dispute regarding transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Subsequently after lodging of the F.I.R. the dispute was amicably settled between the brothers by transferring the vehicle in name of sister-in-law of both the informant and the applicant. The same was informed to the I.0. who had in turn informed the applicant and the informant that he would submit a final report. The applicant only realized that a charge sheet was submitted under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. in Case Crimne No.889 of 2018, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh after he was arrested on 13.06.2024 in the Gangsters Act. Thereafter, the applicant applied bail before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad and was granted bail on 27.06.2024.
c. Case Crime No.503 of 2019, U/ss 506, 504, 307, 147, 148, 149 of ILP.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh–this is a cross F.I.R. as on 03.11.2019 an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.443 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh was lodged by Smt. Sarita Yadav wife of Yogendra Singh and sister-in-law of the applicant alleging therein allegation under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of I.P.C. while accusing Suneel Rathor and Sonu Solanki. In order to retaliate Suneel Kumar Rathor lodged F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.503 of 2019, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh not only against Yogendra Yadav but also the applicant and a few others who had earlier lodged F.I.Rs. against Suneel Rathor. Be that as it may the allegations as alleged in F.IR. vide Case Crime No.503 of 2019 were found to be false and charge sheet was submitted only U/ss 504, 506, of I.P.C. The applicant was granted bail in Case Crime No.503 of 2019 under Sections 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 22.10.2020. Moreover, Suneel Kumar Rathor the informant has submitted an application for quashing of the case owing to a compromise between the adversarial parties on 16.05.2023.
d. Case Crime No.543 of 2022, U/ss 323, 504 of ILP.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehgarh-this F.I.R. was lodged on 04.12.2022 by Rahul Parmar S/o Bhawarpal Singh. Shri Rahul Parmar was working as an accountant of the applicant for past one decade. It had come informant’s knowledge that Shri Parmar was actively involved in embezzlement of applicant’s hard earned money. After making some substantial gains illegally Shri Parmar refused to attend to the summons from the applicant and in order to distance himself from the applicant he lodged a false F.I.R. against the applicant. Post lodging of this F.I.R. the applicant began to ignore Shri Parmar and even when Parmar wanted to apologize and rejoin his duty the applicant refused. The proceeding of the investigation of this case was not known by the applicant until 13.06.2024 when he was arrested from his home under the Gangsters Act. The applicant then applied for and was granted bail by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 27.06.2024. The applicant was not issued any summons in this case earlier.
14. All the aforesaid F.I.Rs have been lodged deliberately to deny the applicant his liberty owing to the political vendetta against members of Bhartiya Janta Party which is political party in Government in State of U.P.
15. Apart from the cases narrated herein above the applicant has following criminal history :-
i. The applicant in the year 2000 was merely about 22 years old when he was named wrongly in a F.I.R. dated o7.03.2000 bearing Case Crime No.174 of 2000, under Sections 307, 302, 504, 506 and 34 of LP.C., registered in P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. In this case vide judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.328 of 2001 the applicant was acquitted from all charges and the State did not file any Appeal against acquittal.
ii. On 29.01.2009 an F.IR. was lodged vide Case Crime No. 41 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506 LP.C. in P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. The applicant was acquitted of all the charges by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide judgment dated 19.11.2013 passed in Case No. 3268 of 2010. There was no Appeal against acquittal filed by the State.
iii. In the year 2017 an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.215 0f 2017, under Sections 506, 504, 307, 149, 148, 147 I.P.C. P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Fatehgarh was lodged by the applicant against Kushal Parihar, Achal Parihar and four others. As a counter blast Kushal Parihar lodged an FIR. against the applicant vide Case Crime No.216 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Fatehgarh. That post the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. as the allegations as narrated in the F.I.R. were found to be false. In this case on 04.07.2017 the applicant was granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 04.07.2017.
iv. An F.LR. vide Case Crime No.388 of 2017, under Sections 147, 504, 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Fatehgarh was lodged by Achal Singh who is brother of Kushal Parihar against the applicant. After the investigation the allegation were found to be false and therefore, final report was submitted in favour of the applicant and was accepted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad on 14.12.2019.
v. An FI.R. vide Case Crime No.397 of 2017, under Sections 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Fatehgarh was lodged by Sanju Kumari against the applicant. After the investigation the allegation were found to be false and therefore, final report was submitted on 22.03.2018 in favour of the applicant.
vi. Thereafter, in the year 2017 on 28.07.2017 an F.I.R. was lodged vide Case Crime No. 115 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of S.C./S.T. Act in P.S. Amritpur, District Fatehgarh against Block Pramukh Subodh Yadav. As the applicant was also a member of the same party he was also falsely named as a co-accused. Final Report was submitted expunging the name of the applicant and the same was accepted by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Farrukhabad 12.12.2018. That despite notice being issued there was no protest against the Final Report.
vii. A case was registered against the applicant Under Section 3/4 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad vide vide Notice No.226 of 2017. Though the District Magistrate has passed an externment order against the applicasnt it was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25722 of 2017, Devendra @ Jaggu Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, where this Honble Court was pleased to stay the externment order vide order dated 21.11.2017.
viii. An F.I.R. vide Case Crime No.486 of 2018 under Sections 323, 342, 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Fatehgarh Kotwali, District Fatehgarh was lodged by Shri Harnam Singh against the applicant. After the investigation the allegation were found to be false and therefore, final report was submitted on 13.07.2018 in favour of the applicant.
ix. A case was registered against the applicant Under Section 3/4 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad vide Notice No. 9 of 2021.
16. Apart from the cases of criminal history discussed in the preceding paragraphs there are five more cases mentioned in the criminal history as per DCRB report which are as follows :-
i. Case Crime No.164o of 2005, Under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Fatehgarh-the applicant has no knowledge of this case. Before filing the instant bail application sincere efforts were made by the family member of the applicant to procure the record regarding this particular case from however, no record was available anywhere. The the Sessions Court as well as the Police Station, applicant therefore, submits that this is a false case provided only to mislead this Court regarding the criminal history of the applicant.
ii. Notice No.285 of 2009, Under Section 110g Cr.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Fatehgarh-the applicant has no knowledge of this notice. Before filing the instant bail application sincere efforts were made by the family member of the applicant to procure the record regarding this particular notice from the office of District Magistrate as well as the Police Station, however, no record was available anywhere. The applicant therefore, submits that this is a false case provided only to mislead this Court regarding the criminal history of the applicant.
iii. Case Crime No.1380 of 2005, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 342, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Farrukhabad, District Fatehgarh–the applicant has no knowledge of this case. Before filing of the instant bail application sincere efforts were made by the family member of the applicant to procure the record regarding this particular case from the Sessions Court as well as the Police Station, however, no record was available anywhere. Moreover, the DCRB report itself states that final report has been submitted in this particular case.
iv. Case Crime No.56 of 2011, Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C., and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S. Mohamdabad, District Fatehgarh–the F.IR. vide Case Crime No.56 of 2011 P.S. Mohamdabad District Fatehgarh is regarding offence under the Electricity Act and has no connection with the applicant. The applicant therefore, submits that this is a false case provided only to mislead this Court regarding the criminal history of the applicant.
v. Case Crime No.1017A of 2007, Under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Fatehgarh, District Fatehgarh the applicant has no knowledge of this case. Before filing the bail application sincere efforts were made by the family member of the applicant to procure the record regarding this particular case from the Sessions Court as well as the Police Station, however, no record was available anywhere. The applicant therefore, submits that this is a false case provided only to mislead this Court regarding the criminal history of the applicant.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant finally submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. With regard to an incident of the year 2020 due to political rivalry he is in jail since 13.06.2024 and if enlarged on bail and will not misuse the liberty of bail.
18. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submission and pointed out that, in view of the criminal history of applicant involving him in large number of cases, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
19. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the applicant has a number of cases in his criminal history however as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it cannot be a ground for denying bail to the applicant. He appears to have sufficient assets and is not at flight risk. Implication of applicant for political reason also cannot be ruled out.
20. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
21. Let the applicant, Devendra Yadav Alias Jaggu, involved in Case Crime No. 73 of 2025, under Sections- 147, 149, 341, 323, 506, 364-A IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Fatehgarh, District- Farrukhabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
22. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
23. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 27.06.2025
Rohit