Allahabad High Court
Ram Samujh Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 764 of 2019
Appellant :- Ram Samujh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anuj Pratap Singh,Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr A S Chauhan, learned counsel for the State. None for respondent no.2 though served.
Appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 1.4.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in bail application No.2020 of 2019, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr PC, arising out of Crime No.1053 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 364, 394 of IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, PS PGI, District Lucknow.
In the present case, name of the complainant is Santosh Kumar who, as per prosecution case, was subjected to assault by the appellant and other co-accused persons on 29.10.2018. It is further alleged that the accused persons have taken Rs.3000/- and a cell phone of the complainant.
Counsel for the appellant submits that:
(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case;
(ii) there was a collision of two motorcycles, one being driven by the complainant and the other being driven by Vishal Kanojia, as a result of which, some Maar-Peet took place, but unfortunately, it has been given a colour of offence under the provisions a Special Act, i.e. SC/ST Act;
(iii) no amount or cell phone of the complainant has been looted;
(iv) similarly placed co-accused Rahul Ojha has been granted bail by the trial Court;
(v) even accepting the prosecution case as it is, offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, as alleged, is not made out against the appellant because the said offence was not committed with an intention that the complainant belongs to a particular caste;
(vi) the appellant is in jail since 7.3.2019 and the trial may take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, he be released on bail; and
(vii) there is every possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes. However, he does not dispute that identically placed co-accused Rahul Ojha has been granted bail by the trial Court.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and further considering the surrounding circumstances, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let appellant Ram Samujh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-a I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-a I.P.C.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
RKK/-
