Rizwan vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 20203 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4158 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Rizwan
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent even in revised call.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Rizwan to set aside the impugned order dated 9.6.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad in Bail Application No. 3555 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2022, under Sections 306 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad by which bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 12.3.2022 was lodged by the father of the deceased against the appellant stating that his daughter was working as a nurse in Sarvodaya Multispeciality Hospital, Kavinagar, Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Earlier to this hospital, the daughter of the first informant and the present appellant were working in Ashirvad Hospital, Gajraula, Ghaziabad. His daughter told several times that the appellant wanted to marry with her and due to this reason, his daughter left the job from Ashirvad Hospital. Thereafter, the appellant presurrized his daughter for marriage, as a result whereof his daughter committed suicide in between 10/11.3.2022.

Before lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.2022 at 1:50 P.M. Post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.3.2022 at 2:00 P.M. After recording the statement of first informant and other prosecution witnesses and after collecting call detail report of the appellant and deceased, charge-sheet had submitted against the appellant on 27.5.2022. Appellant was arrested on 3.5.2022.

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 the deceased was 24 years old at the time of incident and working as a Nurse in the Hospital. It is further submitted that as per call detail reports and other whatsapp messages which were collected during course of investigation, it clearly reveals that on 11.3.2022 (in the mid night) at 00:12:55, 00:16:08, 00:23:31, 00:25:40, 00:28:25, 00:29:38, 00:32:20 and 00:33:33, the deceased and the appellant talked each other several times. It is further submitted that the deceased had love affairs with the appellant. It is further submitted that other call detail report of the appellant and deceased was also found. It is further submitted that as per inquest report, one lacerated wound was found above the eye-lid of right eye.

It is further submitted that as per prosecution case, the body of the deceased was found in a room which was bolted from inside and thereafter the staff of the hospital reached at the spot, who were informed over telephone by the doctor and they informed the police and thereafter police after breaking the door took the dead body to the hospital. It is further submitted that the deceased was disappointed with her father by his suppressing and pressurizing attitude, where she always used to speak about commission of some untoward incident. It is further submitted that there is no evidence with regard to abetment of suicide against the appellant. It is further submitted that the offence of abetment of suicide against the appellant is not made out. The appellant is languishing in jail since 3.5.2022 and 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 Special Judge (SC/ST Act) 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) The deceased is 24 years old at the time of incident and was working as a nurse in a Hospital;

(b) Staff of the hospital reached at the spot on the next day in the morning and found the room was bolted from inside and informed the police;

(c) The victim and the appellant had love affairs since one year prior to the incident and their several call detail reports were found. Even, on the date of incident, they talked several times to each other;

(d) There is no evidence of abetment of suicide against the appellant;

(d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 3.5.2022.

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 9.6.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant Rizwan 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 :- 7.12.2022

CS/-