Allahabad High Court
Naresh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5990 of 2022
Appellant :- Naresh And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nitin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vishnu Kumar Patil
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Shri Nitin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vishnu Kumar Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, 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 has been filed by the appellants Naresh and Vidhyaram to set aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2022 whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad has rejected the bail application No. 1331 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 280 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(?),3(1)(?) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jasrana, District- Firozabad.
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 first information report dated 03.08.2019 was lodged by father of the injured under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(?),3(1)(?) of S.C./S.T. Act. It is further submitted that as per allegations of the F.I.R. the incident took place on 06.07.2019 at 01:00 P.M. and the appellant committed marpit by harpoon (ballam) and iron rods and both the sons of the first informant sustained injury on their head by harpoon (ballam). It is further submitted that the allegation of the F.I.R. is not corroborated with the medical report of the injured persons wherein both the injured persons sustained lacerated wound. It is next contended that as per statement of Dr. Rahul Jain, all the injuries are simple in nature. It is further submitted that offences are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. is added during course of investigation and charge-sheet had been submitted.
It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 29.3.2022 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 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 allegation of the F.I.R. is not corroborated with the medical report of the injured persons wherein both the injured persons sustained lacerated wound.
(b) As per statement of Dr. Rahul Jain, all the injuries are simple in nature.
(c) Offences are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment.
(d) Offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. is added during course of investigation and charge-sheet had been submitted.
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 09.05.2022 is set aside.
Let appellants/applicants, Naresh and Vidhyaram 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 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
Ishan
