Neeraj vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16460 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3744 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Neeraj
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice upon opposite party No. 2, none appears on his behalf.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Neeraj to set aside the impugned order dated 18.1.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut has rejected the bail application No. 640 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 241 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 25.12.2021 has been lodged by the injured against the four named and four unknown persons stating that on 25.12.2021 at 7.00 p.m. when he reached the Dhaba to eat food along with his friend Archesh Kumar and Vinod Kumar, at the same time named accused persons reached there and abused them by using caste derogatory words. On objection being made, they assaulted by country made pistol and sharp edged weapon to the first informant and his friends. In the incident they received injuries. On commotion, accused persons fled away from the place of incident threatening with dire consequences. The incident was seen by Babu Yadav, Rahul, Koshindar and Rakesh.

After lodging of the first information report, injured Brajmohan, Archesh and Vinod were medically examined at C.H.C. Hastinapur, District Meerut on 25.12.2021 at 7.40 p.m., 8.20 p.m. and 8.05 p.m. respectively. As per medical report of first informant Brajmohan, Archesh and Vinod dated 25.12.2021, Brijmohan sustained lacerated wound over head and rest injuries are on the non vital parts as red abrasions. Two lacerated wounds were found on the head of Archesh. Other injuries are on non vital parts. Injuries of Vinod were found on non vital parts like as red contusions. After recording the statements of the injured persons and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against four named and four unknown persons including the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 26.12.2021.

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 and his name surfaced during the investigation on the basis of statement of the injured/first informant recorded on 25.12.2021. It is further submitted that general allegation of committing marpeet has been levelled against the appellant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal history of six other cases, which has been explained in paragraph Nos. 2 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit dated 1.8.2022. Two cases are related to Section 25 Arms Act, one case is related to Goondas Act and one case is related to offence of murder. Two cases are registered against unknown persons. In all cases the appellant was granted bail. In the case related to offence of murder as case crime No. 540 of 2015, the appellant was not named in the said first information report and the eye witnesses had been declared hostile before the trial court. The country made pistol of point 3.15 bore, which was shown to be recovered from the possession of the appellant, was not tallied with the report of ballistic expert. Co-accused Nishu, Ankit and Aman Chaudhary, having similar role, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 1.4.2022 & 29.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12752 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1885 of 2022 & 1234 of 2022 respectively. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 26.12.2021.

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 Special Judge 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 appellant is not named in the first information report and his name surfaced during the investigation on the basis of statement of the injured/first informant recorded on 25.12.2021;

(b) General allegation of committing marpeet has been levelled against the appellant;

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

(d) No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant;

(e) Co-accused Nishu, Ankit and Aman Chaudhary, having similar role, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 1.4.2022 & 29.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12752 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1885 of 2022 & 1234 of 2022 respectively.

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 18.1.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Neeraj 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 :- 10.11.2022

T. Sinha