Ram Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 15145 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2722 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the 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 to set aside the impugned order dated 23.3.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur has rejected the bail application No. 134 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 151 of 2021, under Sections 436, 504 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(iv), 3(1)(da) and (dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jakhlaun District Lalitpur.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 26.12.2021 has been lodged by respondent no. 2 against the appellant and two other named persons stating therein that on 25.12.2021 at about 07:00 P.M. the appellant and two other named co-accused came to the shop of the victim and due to the day's fight, set her shop and hut on fire and her house and household articles were completely burnt.

After lodging of the first information report, the Investigating Officer has exonerated the other co-accused Devendra and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant on 04.02.2022. The appellant was arrested on 3.2.2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that no recovery memo has been prepared in respect of the articles or household articles brunt in the incident. It is further submitted that on the basis of same set of allegations co-accused Devendra has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that appellant has criminal history of 8 other cases. Out of which, three cases are related to under Section 110 G of Cr.P.C. which are related to 2000, 2010 and 2014 and one case is related to Section 151, 107, 116 of Cr.P.C. and one criminal case is being Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 427 of I.P.C. and other offences are minor in nature.

It is further submitted that out of 8 cases, applicant has been granted bail in 7 cases. It is further submitted that after the year of 2014, there is no criminal antecedent to his credit.

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 Sessions court 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 recovery memo has been prepared in respect of the articles or household articles brunt in the incident;

(b) The appellant is languishing in jail since 03.02.2022;

(c) On the basis of same set of allegation co-accused Devendra has been exonerated;

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 23.03.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Ram Singh 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 :- 31.10.2022

Ishan