Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5814 of 2022
Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Maurya
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Chandra,Ashok Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Tiwari
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Pradeep Kumar Maurya to set aside the impugned order dated 28.7.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application No. 1618 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 38 of 2022, under Sections 376(D), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.
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 first information report has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which has been filed after 15 days of the incident. The first information report has been lodged on 28.04.2022 but the incident took place on 24.10.2021. It is further submitted that victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. There is material contradiction between the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the victim has examined before the trial Court as PW-1 wherein she declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case, the age of the victim was 40 years at the time of the incident and her husband left her. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 25.06.2022. 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. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have supported the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra 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) The first information report has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which has been filed after 15 days of the incident;
(b) Victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.;
(c) There is material contradiction between the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., it would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;
(d) Victim has examined before the trial as PW-1 wherein she declared hostile and not supported the prosecution case;
(e) The age of the victim was 40 years at the time of the incident and her husband left her;
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 28.7.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Pradeep Kumar Maurya 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 :- 4.11.2022
Ishan
