Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6207 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 837 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Maurya,Vikas Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ajay Kumar Agnihotri, learned A.G.A. and perused the material brought on record.

Despite the service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to set-aside impugned order dated 30.03.2022 whereby the Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act Hardoi, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 0035 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 333, 336, 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)A, 3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Harpalpur, District-Hardoi. It is further prayed to release the appellant on bail during pendency of his trial.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 29.01.2022 has been lodged against the 5 named and 10 to 15 unknown persons stating therein that on 29.01.2022, when the electric connection is being installed in the tube-well of consumer Satyendra Kumar Mishra and at that time Linemen Govind, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Kailash, Chandrabhushan Pathak, Shailendra and other contractual employees and Inspector-in-Charge of Police Station Harpalpur and police team were also present there and at that time 5 named and 10 to 15 unknown persons having lathi and danda in their hands dismantled the electric line and assaulted the above persons by lathi and dadna and started pelting bricks at them. In the said occurrence, Constables Ankit Kumar and Shivam Kumar sustained grievous injuries.

After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of Constables Ankit Kumar and Shivam Kumar was conducted on 29.01.2022. As per medical report of the injured persons, injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature like swelling. After recording the statement of the injured persons and other other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against co-accused Saroj Kumar, Anoop, Bhaiya Lal and present appellant on 23.04.2022. The investigation against the other co-accused persons is still pending. The appellant was arrested on 14.03.2022.

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 the appellant is not named in the first information report. It is next submitted that there are general role of committing marpit and dismantled the electric line has been assigned to the present appellant. No specific role and involvement has been attributed to present appellant. The name of the appellant has surfaced in the statement of the injured witness Constable Ankit Kumar, who sustained simple injury. It is further submitted that the first informant of the present F.I.R. has not received any injury. As per medical report, injuries of the injured persons are simple in nature.

It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.3.2022. 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 appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. 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 appellant 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 appellant is not named in the first information report;

(b) During the course of investigation on the statement of the injured witness Constable Ankit Kumar, the name of the appellant has surfaced in the present case;

(c) General allegation of committing marpit and dismantled the electric line has been assigned to the present appellant;

(d) No specific role and involvement has been attributed to present appellant;

(e) Injuries of the injured persons are simple in nature;

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 dated 30.03.2022 passed by the court below is liable to be and is, hereby, set aside.

Let the appellant/applicant Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(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/endeavor 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 :- 7.7.2022

Ishan