Jaiprakash Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 21343 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2739 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Jaiprakash Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Awadh Maurya,Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Ronak Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Despite service of notice upon respondent no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Jaiprakash Jaiswal to set aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 whereby the In-charge Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj has rejected the bail application No. 343 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 286 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), of SC/ST Act, Police Station Farenda District Maharajganj.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 05.11.2021 was lodged by father of deceased against the appellant and 8 other persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. stating that on 05.11.2021 at about 06:00 A.M. when his son was returning after defecating, the appellant and other co-accused persons committed marpit by lathi, danda, kicks and fits as a result of which his son got fractured in his hand and sustained injuries on face and skull.

After lodging the first information report, medical examination of the injured was conducted on 05.11.2021 at about 02:45 P.M. at C.H.C. Farenda. As per medical report of the injured Surendra 11 injuries of contusion were found on face, joint of right arm, right elbow joint, right wrist joint, left shoulder joint, left elbow joint, left lower scapula region, left hip joint and right knee joint and two injuries of abraded contusion were found on left lower limb. As per medical report of the injured, all the injuries were simple in nature except injury no. 12 which was found on left patella in left lower limb. After the death of the injured Surendra, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 06.11.2021 at 11:00 A.M. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 06.11.2021 at 02:25 P.M. Cause of death as opined by the doctor is due to shock as result of ante-mortem hemorrhage. After recording the statement of the first informant and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant and co-accused Bholu, Baijnath, and Bharat and the investigation against other 5 named persons is pending. The appellant was arrested on 22.03.2022.

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 general role of committing marpit has been assigned to the present appellant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the appellant. It is further submitted that the injured sustained 14 injuries over his person, out of which injury no. 1 is on the vital part of the body, i.e., on left side of face and left side of forehead. There is no evidence with regard to the fact that who is the author of the fatal injury and there is no evidence on record so as to show that all the named accused persons were in furtherance of common object the instant act was done.

It has also been submitted that co-accused, Bharat, Baij Nath @ Bholu and Golu @ Amarnath, having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.02.2022 and 03.03.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 104 of 2022 and 157 of 2022, and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2022. 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 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) General role of committing marpit has been assigned to the present appellant;

(b) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the appellant;

(c) There is no evidence with regard to the fact that who is the author of the fatal injury;

(d) Co-accused, Bharat, Baij Nath @ Bholu and Golu @ Amarnath, having similar role, have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court;

(e) The appellant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2022;

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 12.04.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Jaiprakash Jaiswal 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 :- 16.12.2022

Ishan