Allahabad High Court
Annu @ Anurag Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1074 of 2022
Appellant :- Annu @ Anurag Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
Vide order dated 18.5.2022, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and that too has been served personally on opposite party no.2 but none is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding to hear the matter.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Sri Kunwar Veer Bhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the Judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Bail Application No.1915 of 2021 'Annu @ Anurag Singh Vs. State of U.P. arising out of Case Crime No.299 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act Police Station Kumarganj, District Ayodhya. It has also been prayed that the appellant-applicant may be released on bail in the aforesaid sections during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. General role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant in the F.I.R. that they have taken away the deceased and, thereafter, he was found dead. Though in the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., allegation with respect to taking away the deceased is not against the applicant. Though there are injuries over the body of the deceased but it cannot be ascertained at this stage as to who is the author of the injuries. There is no independent eye witness of the incident and only on the basis of hearsay, the name of the applicant has been implicated in the present case. There is no corroborative evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the instant matter and only general allegations have been slapped over all the accused persons including the present applicant. Weapon, which is said to be used in the offence, was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of all the accused persons. Identically situated co-accused Ravi @ Manish Singh as well as Shivam have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal Defective No.72 of 2022 by this Court, vide orders dated 13.1.2023 and 20.1.2023. The applicant is seeking parity of the order aforesaid. Role of the applicant is not distinguishable from that of Ravi @ Manish as well as Shivam as there are only the statements of the accused persons against the applicant that too are not admissible as the same are extra-judicial statements. The appellant is a law abiding citizen who is languishing in jail since 1.11.2021. There is no previous criminal history of appellant-applicant, which has been explained in para 20 of the bail application. There is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the contention of the appellant-applicant and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and after thorough investigation, the applicant including the other co-accused persons were found involved in committing the offence, thus, the charge sheet was filed against him. He also added that co-accused have named the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that there are general allegations against the applicant including the other co-accused persons for beating the deceased; there is no eye witness of the incident; role of the applicant is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons as the statements of the co-accused cannot be read against the applicant; identically situated co-accused Ravi @ Manish Singh as well as Shivam have already been enlarged on bail by this Court; the applicant is languishing in jail since 1.11.2021; there is no previous criminal history of appellant-applicant, which has been explained in para 20 of the bail application.
Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the Judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad in Bail Application No.1915 of 2021, is hereby set aside.
Let the applicant-appellant, Annu @ Anurag Singh, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
Order Date :- 30.1.2023
Ram Murti
