Allahabad High Court
Salim And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7362 of 2022
Appellant :- Salim And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Despite service of notice upon the second respondent, none has appeared 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 appellants Salim and Guljar to set aside the impugned order dated 17.9.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh in Bail Application No. 5365 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 246 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 342 and 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dehli Gate, District Aligarh, by which bail applications of the appellants have been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:
(i) The appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
(ii) The impugned FIR dated 20.8.2022 has been lodged against 12 named persons including the appellants and 10-15 unknown persons alleging a general role of committing marpeet with Kunal, Himesh and Sushant by sharp edged weapon and blunt weapon.
(iii) A general role of committing marpeet has been assigned to the appellants.
(iv) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the appellants;
(v) For the same incident, two other first information reports have been lodged against the appellants as Case Crime Nos. 247 of 2022 and 248 of 2022 both are registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 342 and 506 I.P.C. In both the said FIR, the appellants have been granted bail by the court below.
(vi) FIR of cross case has been registered by the appellants against the complainant as Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections 147, 342 and 323 I.P.C.
(vii) The appellants have no criminal history except the aforesaid cases and languishing in jail since 26.8.2022.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellants of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellants are enlarged on bail, they 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 applicants. But, he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicants are released on bail, they 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) It is a counterblast case of Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Section 147, 342 and 323 I.P.C.;
(b) Only general role of committing marpeet has been assigned to the appellants;
(c) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the appellants;
(d) The appellants are languishing in jail since 26.8.2022.
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 17.9.2022 is set aside.
Let appellants/applicants Salim and Guljar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 applicants 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 applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.
(vi) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 applicants, 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 :- 15.12.2022
T. Sinha
