Ruchin vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16461 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3702 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Ruchin
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Nasira Adil,Ambreen Masroor,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Mr. N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Even revised call, none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Ruchin to set aside the impugned order dated 13.5.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur has rejected the Bail Application No. 1942 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 767 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)Da, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

The brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.10.2020 was lodged by the sister of the injured against 24 named accused persons including the appellant and 20-25 unknown persons on the basis of an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 19.9.2020 at about 5:00 P.M. brother of the first informant went to take back his loan amount from co-accused Sachin, whereupon, the present appellant met with his brother at Fauji Dairy and after that the present appellant Ruchin and other co-accused Prince, Ankur, Garvit and Boby committed Mar-peet with his brother by kicks, fists, lathi, danda and abused him with caste abusive language and again on 20.9.2020 at about 6:00 A.M., the accused and unknown persons came with lathi, danda, Ballam and country-made pistol and committed marpeet again with Sundar and brother of the first informant and other persons. During this incident, clothes of her mother were torn.

After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of Sundar and Boby were conducted on 20.9.2020. As per medical report of Boby, he received 5 injuries, which are simple in nature and on non-vital part. The other injured Sunder received four injuries, same is also simple in nature and on non-vital part. As per X-ray report of the injured, no bone was found fractured. After recording the statements of the injured and other prosecution witnesses, final report have been submitted. But, on protest petition, all the accused-persons have been summoned by Magistrate vide order dated 2.9.2021. Appellant was arrested on 1.5.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Only general allegation of committing marpeet has been assigned to the present appellant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellant. It is further submitted that an FIR of cross case being Case Crime No. 706 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 336 376, 511, 506 I.P.C., was lodged by brother of the appellant namely Pankaj against the first informant and other persons. It is further submitted that two persons received injuries and out of which, one Ankit received injuries on his right elbow. It is also submitted that the co-accused Pankaj has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 in Crl. Appeal No. 3704 of 2022. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.5.2022 and 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. has supported the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur 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 FIR has been lodged against 24 named persons including the appellant and 20-25 unknown persons;

(b) Only general allegation of committing marpeet has been assigned to the appellant;

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

(e) FIR of cross case lodged by the brother of the appellant against the first informant and other persons on the same day of the incident;

(f) The appellant is languishing in jail since 1.5.2022.

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 28.7.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant Ruchin 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

CS/-