Allahabad High Court
Ramnaresh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2050 of 2022
Appellant :- Ramnaresh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Kumar Tripathi,Sandeep
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balram Singh
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 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 Lal Singh to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai has rejected the bail application No. 28 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 145 of 2020, in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506, 325, 324 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), (dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rendhar, District Jalaun.
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 allegations of the first information report dated 15.11.2020, which has been lodged against the appellant and 8 named persons general allegations of committing marpit by lathi, danda, halberd and axe has been assigned to the present appellant and other named persons. It is further submitted that no specific role or allegations have been attributed against the appellant. However, informant in his statement has stated that Lal Singh attacked his brother by axe and injured fell down being unconscious; thereafter, father of the informant reached on the spot, accused Ram Naresh who was armed with axe and Sanjay who was armed with country made pistol attacked him; however, injured improved version in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and stated that Ram Naresh had attacked him by axe and he fell down. He next submitted that main injured Surendra was hospitalized for seven days; appellant is in jail since 8.3.2022; co-accused Lal Singh has already been granted bail; other co-accused are already granted bail by the court below as well as this Court; bail orders are filed for perusal.
As per medical report of the injured Surendra Pal Singh, NCCG brain fractured of nasal bone, communicated fracture both side frontal bone and there is evidence two very small extra seen in right front and parietal cavity as maximum thickness 5 mm and 3 mm on his body. It is further submitted that three persons sustained injuries in cross case of the appellant's side. It is next submitted that offence are below 7 years punishable.
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 has supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that appellant cannot claim parity with co-accused persons as Surendra Pal Singh, sustained grievous injury and he was admitted in hospital for 7 days for his treatment. But he could not dispute that other co-accused persons are already enlarged on bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) As per allegations of the first information report dated 15.11.2020, which has been lodged against the appellant and 8 named persons general allegations of committing marpit by lathi, danda, halberd and axe has been assigned to the present appellant and other named persons;
(b) No specific role or allegations have been attributed against the appellant; offence is maximum punishable upto seven years;
(c) Cross-case being Case Crime No. 0148 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. has been lodged by the appellant's side against 7 persons of informant's side;
(d) Three persons sustained injuries in cross case of the appellant's side;
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 28.03.2022 is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant, Ramnaresh 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.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023
Dhirendra/
