While according the paramount importance to the supreme honour, dignity and respect of soldiers who get martyred while defending the motherland in the line of duty, the Allahabad High Court most commendably in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav v. State of UP in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 23466 of 2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 297 that was pronounced finally on June 9, 2022 has clearly, cogently and courageously directed the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to consider the framing of a code laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters. It cannot be denied that very often we see that the civil administration does not care much for the soldiers who get martyred in the line of duty and their family then are compelled to run from pillar to post to get even what are their basic legal and human rights! Of course, the higher echelons of the State administration like the Chief Minister mostly is simply not aware of how shamelessly the local administration deliberately cock a snook at the family of the deceased brave soldier and cares two hoots for them due to which they face lot of problems and endless woes!
It deserves mentioning that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot also unequivocally underscored that the solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to the military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country. The Court also deemed it absolutely fit to sagaciously add in no uncertain terms that, “Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung.” I am sure that the UP CM Yogi Adityanath who himself deeply respects our brave soldiers will have just no issue in complying in totality with what the Allahabad High Court has laid down so very explicitly, elegantly and eloquently in this leading case! No denying it!
We thus see in this leading case that essentially, the Court was dealing with the bail application of one Vivek Yadav booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 307, 427, 3336, 290, 291, 120-B, 188, 436 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section ¾ of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The accused was one of the citizens who were vehemently protesting against the callous attitude of the district administration and their failure to observe proper protocol to honour Dhananjay Yadav who was a young serving soldier in the Indian Army and who had fallen in line of the duty while fighting for the nation. This extremely creditworthy, commendable, courageous, cogent, convincing and composed judgment that has been delivered by Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot was the crying need of the hour also!
To start with, this refreshing, robust, remarkable and rational judgment by a single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2022 at Police Station Chauri-Chaura, District Gorakhpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 307, 427, 336, 290, 291, 120-B, 188, 436 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. The applicant is in jail since 14.04.2022.”
As we see, the Bench then aptly points out in the next para of this learned judgment that, “The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, on 19.05.2022.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this notable judgment that, “Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Dhananjay Yadav, a young serving soldier in the Indian Army had fallen in line of the duty. Disrespect was shown to the martyr by the civil administration. Number of citizens came out to protest against the callous attitude of the district administration and their failure to observe proper protocol to honour the martyr. 56 named and 100 unknown persons were nominated as accused in the FIR. The FIR was lodged only to divert attention from the said failure of the district administration and to stifle the democratic dissent. The applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who inflicted any grievous injuries or caused any damage to public property. He was peacefully exercising his democratic rights to flag the high handed actions and apathy of the local administration. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant is a young student with a bright future. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.”
Quite forthrightly, the Bench then concedes in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that, “Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.”
Needless to say, the Bench then also hastens to add in the next para of this laudable judgment that, “I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”
As a corollary, the Bench then finds it in the fitness of things to hold in the next para of this brief judgment that, “In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.”
Be it noted, the Bench then mandates in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Let the applicant- Vivek Yadav Alias Surya Prakash Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.”
While adding a caveat, the Bench then propounds in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that, “In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.”
It is quite reassuring to note that while fully, firmly and finally condemning the use of violence, the Bench then minces no words to hold in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Violence has no place in a democratic polity, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Non violence is the creed of democratic protests. Law will take its course against the accused who resorted to violence. However before parting some facts were brought to the notice of the Court which deserve mention.” We thus see that the Court strongly condemned the increasing use of violence in our country to pressurize the government to fulfil their demands and made it amply clear that those who resort to violence will not be spared and law will take its own course and the perpetrators of violence would be strictly punished as per the law. Very rightly so!
It is worth noting that the Bench then clearly states in the next para of this learned judgment that, “It is asserted that the mortal remains of the brave soldier who fell in the line of the duty were not received and treated with due State honours befitting a national hero. These are matters of fact which can be ascertained only after due enquiry. The State Government shall cause an enquiry to be conducted into the matter.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then in hindsight deems it apposite to point out in the next para of this remarkable judgment while recalling the past of India that, “A nation that does not honour its martyrs who lay down their lives to protect freedom and preserve the peace, will forfeit its freedom and have no peace. India has known the cost of slavery, and Indians have never hesitated to pay the price of freedom. For the Republic to endure and liberty to survive martyrs have to be revered, and their deeds always remembered.”
Most remarkably, the Bench then does not fight shy to say unequivocally in the next para of this refreshing judgment that, “The solemn obligation of the State is to accord full honours to military heroes who make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the country. Duty is cast on a grateful nation to ensure that the patriots do not go unwept, unhonoured and unsung.”
Most significantly, the Bench then directs in the next para of this learned judgment that, “The State in consultation with the highest military authorities shall consider framing of a code or regulations laying down the protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty, for the funeral rites and any other allied matters . The exercise is liable to be completed within a period of six months.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in the final para of this notable judgment that, “Copy of this order shall be communicated to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. through Government Advocate for necessary compliance.”
All in all, there can be no gainsaying that every Indian must definitely feel proud when our Courts deliver most forthright judgments like this one wherein Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Bhanot most vocally laid paramount importance to esteem of brave soldiers who most willingly lay down their lives while gallantly defending their motherland from the onslaught of terrorists and enemy soldiers on the borders! The Court rightly directed the State Government to consider laying down proper protocol for receiving and bearing the carriage of the mortal remains of soldiers martyred in the line of duty for the funeral rites and any other allied matters. Of course, one can reasonably expect that the incumbent State government led by the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath will also take this extremely commendable judgment in the right spirit and make doubly sure that what all the Allahabad High Court has directed is implemented in totality at the earliest!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate
It is quite reassuring to note that while fully, firmly and finally condemning the use of violence, the Bench then minces no words to hold in the next para of this brilliant judgment that, “Violence has no place in a democratic polity, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. Non violence is the creed of democratic protests. Law will take its course against the accused who resorted to violence. However before parting some facts were brought to the notice of the Court which deserve mention.” We thus see that the Court strongly condemned the increasing use of violence in our country to pressurize the government to fulfil their demands and made it amply clear that those who resort to violence wil