Kiran Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22503 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55267
 

 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1982 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Kiran Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Madhavan,Shiva Shashank
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List is being revised.

This case is being taken up on the mention made by learned counsel for the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ramakar Shukla and Sri Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record.

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1983/2022, Case Crime No.50 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Labhua, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the version of F.I.R. there were seven persons including the appellant, who assaulted the complainant and his family members by lathi, danda and axe, on account of which son of complainant namely, Manoj, died.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that three weapons, i.e., lathi, danda and axe have been assigned in the hands of seven persons, but there is no any specific allegation against any of the accused, even none of the accused has been assigned any specific weapon holding in his hands, even none of the injured named any accused that he hit the injured by which weapon and a general role of assaulting has been assigned to all the accused including the present appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was found to be hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries and there were only two injuries found on the person of the deceased. Thus, it has been argued that in absence of any specific role and in absence of any specific weapon assigned to any of the accused including the appellant, it is a case of false implication due to village party bandi and rivalry. In fact appellant was not present on the spot at the time of incident and whatsoever injuries which were found in the postmortem of the deceased were caused due to some other reasons, therefore, the prayer for bail of the present appeal may be allowed by this Court sympathetically and the impugned bail rejection order passed by the trial court may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that one co-accused, Vineeta Singh, who was also named in the F.I.R. and was also not assigned any specific role or any specific weapon, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 907 of 2022 and another co-accused Shailendra Singh @ Suraj Singh and Indrawati Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2023 and 16.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1219 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 1220 of 2022 respectively. It is further submitted that co-accused, Kaushlendra Singh @ Rajan Singh has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1226 of 2022. It is further submitted that another co-accused Alok Kumar Singh @ Bachchan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1189 of 2022. It is further submitted that the case of the present appellant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused, thus, the appeal of the present appellant may also be allowed by this Court sympathetically and the impugned bail rejection order passed by the trial court may be set aside.

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 02.03.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that appellant along with other persons is involved in the crime and due to his action or inaction one person died on the spot whereas several other persons sustained injuries, but he has not disputed that none of the accused have been assigned any specific role or any specific weapon and only three weapons have been assigned by the prosecution. He further submitted that appellant is involved in the alleged crime, thus, his prayer for bail may be rejected and the appeal may be dismissed.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, nature of evidence, period of detention already undergone, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that three weapons, i.e., lathi, danda and axe have been assigned in the hands of seven persons, but there is no any specific allegation against any of the accused including the appellant, even none of the accused including the appellant has been assigned any specific weapon holding in their hands, even none of the injured named any accused that he hit the injured by which weapon and a general role of assaulting has been assigned to all the accused including the present appellant; further as per postmortem report cause of death of the deceased was found to be hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries and there were only two injuries found on the person of the deceased; there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any specific role and in absence of any specific weapon assigned to any of the accused including the appellant it is a case of false implication due to village party bandi and rivalry; co-accused, Vineeta Singh and Kaushlendra Singh @ Rajan Singh, Shailendra Singh @ Suraj, Indrawati Singh and Alok Kumar Singh @ Bachchan who were also not assigned any specific role or any specific weapon, have already been granted bail by this Court, thus, there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that case of the present appellant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. Thus, the impugned bail rejection order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1983/2022, Case Crime No.50 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Labhua, District Sultanpur is hereby set aside and reversed.

Let the appellant, Kiran Singh be released on bail in the Case Crime No.50 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Labhua, District Sultanpur with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

(b) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected, and

(c) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure her presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

(viii) The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.

Order Date :- 21.8.2023

Arvind