Suneet vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 18529 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4454 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Suneet
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Prakash,Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav,Ram Prakash Vishwakarma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Prakash Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar, 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 Suneet to set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur has rejected the bail application No. 1494 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 530 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur.

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 as per allegation of the first information report dated 10.10.2021, which was lodged against the appellant and other co-accused Deepak alleging therein that on 25.03.2021, the appellant and other co-accused persons made an agreement to sale of a house situated in Nazirpura for a total consideration of Rs. 9,80,000/-, out of which, the first informant paid Rs. 7,60,000/- to the appellant and other co-accused persons and a receipt thereof had been given by the appellant and other co-accused to the first informant and the remaining amount of sale consideration was payable on 06.04.2021 but they did not execute the sale deed in favour of the first informant and two cheques of Rs. 3,60,000/- given to the first informant, which was dishonoured due to insufficient balance. It is further submitted that no written agreement to sale was executed by the appellant in favour of the first informant. It is further submitted that no evidence pertaining to forgery against the appellant is found.

It is further submitted that the case is purely civil in nature and the offence are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that charge-sheet had been submitted. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2021. 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) No written agreement to sale was executed by the appellant in favour of the first informant.

(b) No evidence pertaining to forgery against the appellant is found.

(c) The case is purely civil in nature and the offence are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment.

(d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2021.

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 04.05.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Suneet 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 :- 23.11.2022

Ishan