Allahabad High Court
Roopendra Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1759 of 2021
Appellant :- Roopendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar,Gautam,Subhash Gosain
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Notice sent to respondent no. 2 as per letter dated 15.05.2021 of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been served personally but none has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Roopendra Singh with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15 of 2021, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 780 of 2020, under Section 120B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the he has already filed supplementary affidavit and at page 10 of the said supplementary affidavit, the bail order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court is annexed and according to which the appeal of the appellant against bail rejection order in other sections has been allowed and he has been granted bail. Submission is that after investigation, the I.O. included Section 120B I.P.C. in the charge sheet and in that section bail application was filed by the appellant before the court below but the same was rejected by the impugned order. Submission is that when in other sections bail has already been allowed, therefore, the present appeal is also liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned bail rejection order under Section 120B I.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the the prayer but he has conceded the fact that in major sections, the appeal of the appellant has already been allowed earlier.
It appears strange that when in major sections, the appeal of the accused-appellant has already been allowed and the accused-appellant has been directed to be released on bail, the learned court below has rejected the bail application filed under Section 120B I.P.C. It has been pointed out that at the time of passing of the rejection order, the judgment in appeal by which the bail order was granted to the accused-appellant was not before the court below and, therefore, the bail application under Section 120B was rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that when the appeal filed under the major sections has already been allowed, allowing the appeal under Section 120B I.P.C. is nothing but mere formality. I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.02.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant namely Roopendra Singh involved in Case Crime No. 780 of 2020, under Section 120B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun is granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
sailesh
