Allahabad High Court
Iqbal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 January, 2021
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2853 of 2020
Appellant :- Iqbal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 17th September, 2020 passed by learned Additional and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Bail Application No.- 1664 of 2020 rejecting the bail application arising out of Case Crime No.- 238 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 304, 308, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(5) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Sikandra, District- Kanpur Dehat.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a criminal appeal filed by the Idrish Khan and Lalai in connection with same case crime number has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 28th July, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No.- 6339 of 2019, which is reproduced hereunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Bail Application No. 1992 of 2019 (Idrish Khan and another Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2018, under Sections 147,148, 308, 324, 504, 506/304 IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Kanpur Dehat, seeking them release on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per allegation made in the FIR which has been lodged by Lajja Ram, general role of assault has been assigned to as many as six persons causing death of deceased Neeraj. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the incident is said to have been witnessed by Aarti Devi, sister of the victim-deceased. He has next submitted that the statement of eyewitness Aarti Devi has been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has categorically stated that co-accused Ikrar had caught the victim by his waist and co-accused Sonu is said to have assaulted him by axe and rest accused were abusing the deceased. Only general role is assigned to the appellants to have participated in the incident and no specific role for causing injury to the victim-deceased has been assigned to them.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellants are in jail since 01.07.2019 and they have no criminal history to their credit and there is no chance of appellants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, they may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the criminal appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.
Let the appellants Idrish Khan and Lalai involved in Case Crime No. 238 of 2018, under Sections 147,148, 308, 324, 504, 506/304 IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Kanpur Dehat, be released on bail on 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.
1. The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that role of the present appellant as per the victim's own statement is only hurling abuses and main role is assigned to Sonu. Thus, the case of the appellant is distinguishable and has parity with Idrish Khan and Lalai. It is also argued that there is no previous criminal history to the credit of the appellant. It is also submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17th July, 2019.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the application for bail but could not demonstrate as to how the present appellant can be denied parity as he is identically placed to the co-accused persons, namely, Idrish Khan and Lalai, who have already been granted bail by this Court.
In view of the above, the order passed by the court below cannot be sustained in the light of view expressed by this Court in its order dated 28th July, 2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.- 6339 of 2019. Thus, the appellant is also entitled for parity.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17th September, 2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Iqbal involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to 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.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021
Atmesh
