Yadram vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 18253 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8549 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Yadram
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Irfan
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Sri Mohd. Irfan, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of second respondent today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for the second respondent, Sri Rajesh Kumar Sachan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Yadram to set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2022, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh in Bail Application No. 5667 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Palimukeempur, District Aligarh, by which bail application of the appellant was rejected.

The brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 11.7.2022 was lodged at 11:26 A.M. by brother of the deceased stating that on 10.7.2022 at about 10:00 P.M., his brother in the house of present appellant, situated near the house of the first informant, were drinking wine and during drinking, some altercation took place between them. At the same time, son of the appellant Guddu and Satish and other person Banti, Kuldeep committed marpeet with his brother, by which his brother sustained injury on his head. During this incident, the first informant also received injury on his hand and head. After that his brother Anil went to his house and the first informant after taking first aid treatment from the village, went to house and get slept. In the morning, the first informant went to the house of the brother, where he found his brother dead. The friend of the first informant Rinku informed about the incident to the Police over 112 number.

Before lodging of the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 11.7.2022 at 10:00 A.M. Post-mortem of the deceased was also conducted on 11.7.2022 at 12:55 P.M. As per inquest report as well as post-mortem report, one lacerated wound was found on the head of the deceased. After recording the statements of the first informant as well as other other prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet had been submitted against the appellant and four other named accused persons on 23.8.2022. The Appellant was arrested on 12.7.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:

(i) The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

(ii) As per post-mortem report, one lacerated wound was found on the head of the deceased. Except, this lacerated wound, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased.

(iii) As per statement of the injured eye-witness/first informant, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellant.

(iv) It is highly improbable and suspicious that the first informant as a brother of the deceased, despite knowing the injury of the deceased-brother, not took him to the doctor for first aid and deceased went to the house by himself.

(v) The appellant is 65 years old and languishing in jail since 12.7.2022 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. as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 have supported the order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But, they could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submit 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) FIR has been lodged against five persons including the appellant;

(b) The first informant who received six injuries on his body and took first aid after the incident, the deceased went to the house by himself without any first aid;

(c) Only one injury was found on the person of the deceased;

(d) As per statement of injured-witness/first informant, there is no allegation of committing assault upon the deceased by the appellant;

(e) The role of assault was attributed to other co-accused;

(d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 12.7.2022.

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 18.10.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant Yadram 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 :- 22.11.2022

CS/-