Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Nagar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 19.4.2023
DELIVERED ON 26.4.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6127 of 2022
Appellant :- Rajendra Nagar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Basharat Ali Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Surendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.
Heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant;Shri Prashant Sharma, holding brief of Shri Surendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
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 1.8.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 1202 of 2021, under Sections 306,406 IPC and Section 392)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
There is allegation in the first information report that the father of the informant was dealing in property and he had promised third parties of sale of some plots of the appellant @ Rs.2100/- per sq. feet and accordingly paid the appellant.When he requested the appellant to execute the sale deeds or return the amounts taken,he was abused by caste related words and threatened of life. Appellant informed the deceased that he will sell the plot @ Rs.2400/- per Sq. feet only.It was alleged that the appellant from the deceased had taken Rs.9,31,000/- and Rs. three lacs were paid by him to the co-accused by the deceased, father of the informant as commission. Being harassed by the conduct of the appellant and co-accused his father consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. Mere not honouring of commitment regarding property deal cannot be considered to be the offence of abetement under section 306/107 I.P.C..
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. The inspector of police, 2022 0 AIR (SC) 4994 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 0 Supreme(SC),578 in support of his contention.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant wherein he has brought on record the fact that the deceased was having matrimonial disputes with his wife and number of cases are pending in this regard. The details whereof has been brought on record in third supplementary affidavit 21.3.2023. He has submitted the the cause of suicide was the matrimonial dispute of the deceased with his wife and also with his children. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 14.7.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant but is not able to rebut the same on facts and law.
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 appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 1.8.2022 is, hereby, set aside.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let appellant, Rajendra Nagar 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 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.
(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant, 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 criminal appeal is allowed.
Order Date :-26.4.2023
Atul kr. sri.
