Allahabad High Court
Akil Khan @ Nanhe And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3158 of 2022
Appellant :- Akil Khan @ Nanhe And 2 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shahid Ali Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Shahid Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and perused the material on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit has rejected the bail application No. 662 of 2022 of the appellants moved by them in Special Case No. 69 of 2019, under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the first informant stating therein that on 15.9.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. son of the first informant had gone to purchase some household items from the shop of Nanhe. Some money related dispute occurred between them, thereafter, Nanhe, Shakeel Khan, Sabbu Khan and Radhey started to beat the son of the first informant. On hearing hue and cry, when the wife of first informant came to rescue him, the accused persons by using caste derogatory words have beaten the first informant, his wife and son and broken the tooth of the first informant and torn the clothes of his wife.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the appellants have filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. No. 22789 of 2021 before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.2.2022 issued notice to the complainant to file counter affidavit and further ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants. It is further submitted that there is no medical report with regard to the injury, as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 21.4.2022. The appellants have no criminal history.
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. and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit 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) The appellants have filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. No. 22789 of 2021 before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.2.2022 ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants;
(b) There is no medical report with regard to the injury, as alleged in the complaint;
(c) The appellants are languishing in jail since 21.4.2022.
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 21.4.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicants, Akil Khan @ Nanhe, Shakeel Khan and Sabbu Khan 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 them 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 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 :- 2.11.2022
T. Sinha
