Allahabad High Court
Ram Kewal @ Kallu vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 6 August, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 186 of 2021
Appellant :- Ram Kewal @ Kallu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay "Madhavan"
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, complainant's counsel, and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside order dated 4.1.2020, passed in Bail No.2636 of 2020, arising out of case crime No.300 of 2019 under sections 328, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Peeperpur, district Amethi.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the appellant/applicant along with three other accused persons have been named in the first information report . The investigating officer while filing charge-sheet have not found version of the first information report correct and thus, has dropped the names of co-accused Ram tej and Rohit. The co-accused Dinesh had lodged first information report against the deceased Chandrashekhar under section 363 I.P.C. vide Annexure No.8. The prosecutrix gave statement under section 164 CrPC which is also on record and after that due to humiliation, he committed suicide.
The informant herself has denied the prosecution story in the first information report while giving her statement under section 161 CrPC. The story in the first information report has again been denied by the informant while giving application to police station Peeperpur, district Amethi where allegation has been levelled against one Harishwar Singh. This application is on record with the case diary as Rapat No.33. The informant has alleged that the wife of Bhagaunu has seen the applicant with the deceased last time. Statement of Smt Gudda wife of Bhagaunu has been recorded after more than five months who has only given the last seen evidence. Apart from last seen evidence, there is no other substantial evidence. No incriminating article has been recovered from the appellant.
The applicant is in jail since 15.3.2020, having no criminal history.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel while opposing the bail prayer submit that there is last seen evidence against the appellant, however, they could not dispute aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the argument advanced by parties' counsel and the judgment in Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. [2001(2) JIC 163 (SC)], without commenting upon merit of the case, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record.
In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below is liable to be and is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Let the appellant/applicant 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021
kkb/
