Satyam Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8025 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 359 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Satyam Shukla And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Shukla,Lalji Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to set-aside order dated 25.01.2022 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2748 of 2021 (Satyam Shukla & Another Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 285 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 452, 352, 436 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered Police Station- Sangipur, District- Pratapgarh by which rejecting the bail application of the appellants.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 9.11.2021 has been lodged against the appellants and 5 other named and 5 to 6 unknown persons stating therein that on 08.01.2021 at about 09:30 A.M., the appellants and 5 other named and 5 to 6 unknown persons came to the house of the first informant and abusing her by caste derogatory words, when the first informant opposed them, then they committed marpit by kicks and fits. On hearing the noise, her husband Udai Chand Saroj, brother-in-law Phool Chand Saroj, sister-in-law Rama Devi and Atul Saroj came out of the house. So the appellants who had taken lathi and danda in their hands committed marpit with the husband of the first informant and gave a lathi blow to her husband Udai Chand Saroj, due to which he became unconscious, after that when the other villagers gathered then they set fire to the shed of the first informant and fled away from the spot.

After lodging of the first informant report, medical examination of the injured persons Udai Chand Saroj, Atul Saroj, Rama Devi, Phool Chand Saroj and Ranno Devi were conducted on 08.11.2021 and 09.11.2021. As per medical report of injured Udai Chand Saroj, one lacerated wound over frontal scalp, contusion over right eye and one lacerated wound over occipital scalp have been found. As per CT Scan report, fracture has been found on the skull and the discharge slip of SRN Hospital Prayagraj from 8.11.2021 to 17.11.2021 was collected after recording the statement of the injured Udai Chand Saroj and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellants on 05.11.2022 and investigation against the other 5 named and 5 to 6 unknown persons is still pending. The appellants were arrested on 11.11.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per allegations of the first information report, general role of committing marpit with the injured persons Udai Chand Saroj, who sustained injury on his skull has been assigned to the appellants and no specific allegation or involvement have been attributed to the present appellants. It is further submitted that father of the appellants have lodged an NCR under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C. on 11.11.2021. It is further submitted that father of the appellant have sustained 4 injuries, which has been mentioned in the medical report dated 08.11.2021. It is further submitted appellants have no criminal antecedent to their credit.

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. as well as opposite party no. 2 have supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants 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 appellants 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) The first information report has been lodged against the applicants and 5 other named and 5 to 6 unknown persons;

(b) General role of committing marpit have been assigned against the appellant;

(c) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellants;

(d) Father of the appellant have sustained 4 injuries, which has been mentioned in the medical report dated 08.11.2021;

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, their role and involvement in the offence, their 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 appeal is allowed.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 is liable to be set-aside.

Let appellant/applicants, Satyam Shukla and Mahesh @ Saurabh Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bonds and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellants/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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The appellants/applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The appellants/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 appellants/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 appellants/applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

(vi) The appellants/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 appellants 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 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 :- 26.7.2022

Ishan