Allahabad High Court
Robin vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7080 of 2019
Appellant :- Robin
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Vikram Singh,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Prem Kumar Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3853 of 2019 (Robin Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of in Case Crime No.418 of 2019, under Sections 307, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Kakore, District Bulandshahr and also seeks enlargement of the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, Gangalal informant, who is father of the injured Naitik, lodged FIR under Sections 307, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 19.8.2019 at 7.35 p.m. against the accused persons, namely, Sachin, Bhopa, Robin (appellant) and Kapil alleging inter alia that they came to the house of Nanak and fired there. They also fired in the society of Jatav and at that time the son of the complainant Naitik received firearm injury on his eye. Thereafter the accused persons by using caste derogatory words and threatening run away.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It is further argued that son of the informant had committed marpeet with appellant on 19.8.2019 and in this incident co-accused Kapil had received grievous injury. It is also argued that the statement of the informant has been recorded before the trial court in which he has not assigned any specific role to the appellant. There is no motive or intention to commit the said offence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.8.2019 and co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra and Kapil have been granted bail vide orders dated 24.8.2020 & 21.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.20257 of 2020 & 6013 of 2019 respectively.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that the injured sustained firearm injury on his eye which is vital part of the body. It is further contended that the appellant is hardened criminal and he has criminal history of 14 cases and his case is distinguishable from co-accused Jeetu @ Jitendra and Kapil who have no criminal history, therefore, appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that in paragraph no.16 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that appellant has no criminal antecedent. When State in para 11 of the counter affidavit pointed out that appellant has long criminal history, thereafter appellant has filed supplementary affidavit dated 23.12.2021 disclosing his criminal history of 13 cases. As such appellant tried his best to suppress his criminal history at the first hearing of the case before this Court. Now it is admitted fact that appellant has criminal history of total fourteen criminal cases. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2015) 3 SCC 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender. The said judgment has been further followed in a recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781. I also find that four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and the trial is proceeding. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bulandshahr and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022
M. Tarik
