Allahabad High Court
Lovindar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143049
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3481 of 2022
Appellant :- Lovindar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Singh,Satya Pal Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohit Singh
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh and Sri Satya Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the informant 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 impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, in Case Crime No.337 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence narrated in the F.I.R. It is submitted that general role of firing has been assigned to the present appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the present appellant is the author of injuries sustained by the injured. It is further submitted that during the course of trial the informant was examined as P.W.-1 who was declared hostile, P.W.-2, injured was also declared hostile and P.W.-3, Dhanwati wife of Navratan who is the eye witness has also been declared hostile. 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 in jail since 12.07.2021 having no criminal history 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 and submitted that the informant in his examination in chief corroborated the version of F.I.R. and proved the F.I.R. as exhibit. Apart from it, other eye witnesses, Sapna and Jasveer are yet to be examined on behalf of the informant. The evidence of the informant is to be appreciated at the time of trial since he has corroborated the version of examination in chief. It has also been submitted that in the case two persons are done to death and one person sustained injuries.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the active participation of the appellant in the commission of crime, I do not find it fit case for bail.
Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the appellant, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023
Atul
