Allahabad High Court
Poojan @ Deepak vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9499 of 2022
Appellant :- Poojan @ Deepak
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra,Manisha Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
As per office report, notice has been served on first informant, however, none appeared on his behalf to contest the present criminal appeal, therefore, the Court proceeds to decide this criminal appeal on merits.
Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.03.2022 under Section 302 I.P.C. as well as bail rejection order dated 15.09.2021 under Sections 307, 352, 323, 325, 506, 326 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST P.A. Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 603 of 2021, Police Station Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad.
In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that informant Rahul, who was injured in this case, lodged the first information report on 21.07.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 20.07.2022 against Ankit, Poojan and Monu alleging inter alia that on 20.07.2021, when he was going for his hair-cutting, he was badly assaulted by the accused persons by stick, knife and rod whereby he received several injuries.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the first information report, general role of assault has been attributed to all the accused persons by stick, knife and rod but no specific weapon has been specified against the present appellant. Referring to the injury report dated 20.07.2021, it is pointed out that total 13 injuries were found on the body of the injured and except injury nos. 12 and 13, all the injuries were simple in nature. In supplementary medical report, injury no. 12 has been found grievous in nature as the teeth of the injured was found broken. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no knife injury on the body of the injured. It is further pointed out that on 11.09.2021, charge-sheet was submitted in this case and thereafter on 01.10.2021, injured/informant Rahul died at his home. Information about his death was given by his uncle on 01.10.2021 and entry of the same was made in GD No. 38 dated 01.10.2021. Referring to the post mortem report of the deceased, it is pointed out that only one old healed scar mark was found present on the top of the skull of the deceased and cause of death is septicemia as a result of lung infection. Much emphasis has been given by contending that though it is the case of the family members of the deceased that he was admitted in hospital but no document with regard to admission of the injured/deceased was given during investigation to the Investigating Officer. Lastly, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maniben Vs. State of Gujarat, [2009 (67) ACC 254], it is argued that as per cause of death mentioned in the post mortem report, present case would fall under Section 304, Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that co-accused Monu @ Ajay Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order of even date, i.e., 10.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2022 and another co-accused Ankit has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 10.10.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 2640 of 2022 by co-ordinate bench of this Court.
The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is languishing in jail since 23.07.2021. Lastly, it is submitted that due to heavy docket, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial of the appellant in near future. There is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that innocence of the appellant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, but did not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that specific weapon has not been assigned to the present appellant though there is allegation of causing injury by knife also but no knife injury was found on the body of the injured when he was medically examined on 20.07.2021. In this case, injured/informant died on 01.10.2021 at his house after submission of charge-sheet dated 11.09.2021 and as per post mortem report, cause of death is septicemia as a result of lung infection, therefore, prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be said that the deceased died on account of injury sustained to him in the incident dated 20.07.2021.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasons as mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The impugned order rejecting bail of the appellant is liable to be set-aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant -Poojan @ Deepak involved in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the appellant 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.
(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
Order Date :- 12.4.2023
Nitika
