Ritik Singh @ Vibhoo Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9021 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1225 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Ritik Singh @ Vibhoo Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Mishra,Mahesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kunwar Shankar Pratap Sin,Ram Sajiwan Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Manoj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. None appears for the opposite party No. 2 even in the revised call and on 20.4.2022, the case was listed peremptorily.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 28.7.2021, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow has rejected the bail application No. 4669 of 2021 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 084 of 2021, under Section 305, IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 12.3.2021 has been lodged by father of the victim against the applicant under Section 306, IPC stating that his minor daughter, aged about 17 years has committed suicide on 11.3.2021 in the house and the appellant is responsible for the aforesaid act. Vibhoo Singh had snatched the mobile of her daughter and committed marpeet with her. There was a conversation between the appellant and the daughter of the first informant for almost two years.

After lodging the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.3.2021 at 12.55 p.m. at Mortuary, Medical College, Lucknkow. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.3.2021 at 2.30 p.m. As per postmortem report, cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging and viscera was preserved. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant on 26.5.2021. The appellant was arrested on 13.3.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per prosecution independent witnesses, deceased was having a love affair with the appellant and wanted to marry with him. Sometime before the incident, marriage of the appellant has been fixed to another place and he denied to marry with the deceased, due to which she committed suicide. It is further submitted that no external injury was found on the person of the deceased. Nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the appellant and no Call Detail Report of the mobile of the deceased as well as appellant has been collected during the course of investigation. As per allegation of the first information report, daughter of the first informant has committed suicide after taking away the mobile phone of the victim by the accused. The appellant has 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.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The incident took place in the house of the first informant;

(b) No external injury was found on the person of the deceased;

(c) No incriminating article/mobile has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the appellant;

(d) No Call Detail Report (CDR) of the mobile of the deceased/appellant has been collected during the investigation;

(e) Cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging;

(f) The appellant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2021.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed.

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below is liable to be and is, hereby, set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Ritik Singh alias Vibhoo Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

Order Date :- 3.8.2022

T. Sinha