Jai Shankar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 19282 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2992 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Jai Shankar Pandey
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Kant,Shashi Shankar Tripathi,Vikas Mani Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Archana Agrawal,Mazhar Shakeel
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Ram Milan Tripathi, holding brief of Shri Chandra Kant, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri V.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Jai Shankar Pandey to set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi Gyanpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Koirouna, District- Bhadohi Gyanpur.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 4.2.2022 was lodged by the father of the deceased against the appellant and 4-5 other boys of Bhrahamn Community stating that on 3.2.2022 son of first informant had gone from Ibrahimpur Ghat to Koirauna market by tractor and on his way of returning, near the house of Ex-MP namely Gorakhnath Pandey because of the breaker the tractor was dis-balanced and at that time the appellant and other accused persons pulled out the son of first informant from the tractor and committed mar peet with him. They have also snatched the mobile and money from the son of first informant. After taking Rs.1000/- from the owner of the tractor, they left the tractor. The first informant brought his son to the hospital where his son was referred to private hospital and during the treatment his son has died. The inquest was conducted on 4.2.2022. The post mortem was also conducted on the same day i.e. 4.2.2022 at about 4.30 PM. As per post mortem report out of nine injuries only one injury was found of contusion and all of other are bruises on various part of the body of the deceased. After recording the statement of eye witnesse and other prosecution witnesses, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant on 6.2.2022.

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 post mortem report or medical report of the eye witness Shiv Chandra, all injuries are related to an accident of tractor which was dis-balanced. The aforesaid tractor was driven by the son of the first informant and he sustained injury in the aforesaid accident. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet had been submitted against the appellant. Only one injury has been sustained by eye witness Shiv Chandra. The appellant is languishing in jail since 6.2.2022. The appellant has criminal history of one case. 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. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 have supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. 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) As per prosecution case the tractor was driven by the son of first informant, which was dis-balanced at a particular place;

(b) The injuries of the deceased as well as eye witness Shiv Charan are not corroborated to the prosecution case;

(c) Charge-sheet had been submitted against the appellant only and there is no investigation is pending against the other 4-5 unknown persons.

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 and impugned order dated 25.03.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Jai Shankar Pandey 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.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked;

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall 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 :- 1.12.2022

S.K.