Allahabad High Court
Deepak vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3623 of 2020
Appellant :- Deepak
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ayank Mishra,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
AND
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3152 of 2020
Appellant :- Guddu @ Ravindra
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ayank Mishra,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
AND
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 327 of 2021
Appellant :- Rajendra
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ayank Mishra,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on Exemption Application
Exemption Application is allowed.
Appellants are directed to remove the defect within one month from today.
Order on Criminal Appeal
Since all the aforesaid appeals are related to same crime, they have been heard together, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.
The aforesaid criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Moradabad in Special S. T. No. 726 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 631 of 2020.
Documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copy of the lower court record) and documents available with the learned A.G.A. (instruction and case diary) are sufficient to decide the appeal, hence heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that although two persons are said to have been died in the matter but appellants were not named in the FIR. Informant, who claimed herself to be the eye account witness also did not disclose the name of the appellants in the first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the appellants referred to the second statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and further argued that informant also did not disclose the name of the appellants in this statement. Subsequently Investigating Officer has recorded the third statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and she named the appellants in committing the present offence. Had the appellants been committed the present offence their names must have been disclosed in the FIR or the first statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It appears that informant is also not an eye witness. Due to this reason name of the appellants were disclosed in the third statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was also argued that general role has been assigned against the appellants. It is not clear that who caused the injuries by which weapon to the deceased person. No prima facie case is made out. Trial Court while rejecting the bail application of the appellants have committed illegality. They are in jail since 07.06.2020 having no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Since the informant's brother was injured, he was taken to the hospital for treatment immediately. As and when the name of the appellants were known to the informant she disclosed the same in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Referring to the post mortem report it is also argued that cause of death of the deceased person is due to ante mortem injuries. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Appeals having no merit are liable to be dismissed.
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 appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned orders suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail application of the appellants are set-aside.
Let the appellants Deepak, Guddu alias Ravindra and Rajendra involved in Special S.T. No. 726 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 631 of 2020, under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v), 3(2) (vKa), 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Manjhola, District Moradabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 he is 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.
The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned court/authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021
Sachdeva
