Allahabad High Court
Nilesh Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241935
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12204 of 2023
Appellant :- Nilesh Pandey
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
List revised.
Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Learned A.G.A. submits that despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of 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 30.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit in Third Bail Application No. 2450 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 822 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pooranpur, District Pilibhit.
The case of prosecution as per FIR is that on 28.10.2022 at around 11.00 am Vikram had gone Pooranpur for his some personal work, the accused-appellant Nilesh Pandey, Sany Pandey and V.K. Pandey including 3-4 unknown persons caught him and started beating him. Number of persons gathered there and indiscriminate firing was made, the appellant and other co-accused surrounded the brother of the informant and attacked him with the illegal weapons in their hands, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries on his face and in the meantime appellant Nilesh Pandey opened fire, which hit at the right leg below knee of the injured. The incident was witnessed by Aman son of Mukesh and Shivam son of Ashok.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first appeal filed on behalf of appellant was rejected by this court vide order dated 17.08.2023 in which trial court was directed to record the statements of injured and eye witnesses within a period of four months. However, the eye witnesses Aman and Shivam were discharged on the application given by the prosecution since they are not coming forward to support the prosecution case. The trial court has failed to record the statement of injured Nihal. Appellant has six cases criminal history which has been explained in para-44 of the affidavit filed in support of appeal. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 29.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable 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, namely, Nilesh Pandey 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 21.12.2023
AKT
