Allahabad High Court
Ramkumar vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 2 February, 2024
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10055
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1918 of 2023
Appellant :- Ramkumar
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Counter as well as rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.298/2023 arising out of Case Crime No.83/2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 & 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ataria, District Sitapur.
4. It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. The investigation was initially conducted by the local police in which the final report was submitted in relation to the appellant and other co-accused persons namely, Surendra Kumar Shukla and Manendra Shukla and the charge-sheet was also filed against Jangi, Putan, Arun Kumar and Ram Kumar. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to CBCID and the trial was proceeded in relation to Jangi, Putan and Arun Kumar.
He further submits that Arun Kumar and Jangi have died during pendency of Special Sessions Trial No.661 of 2000 and Putan was acquitted by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2023. The charge-sheet in relation to the appellant and other co-accused persons namely, Surendra Kumar and Manendra was challenged before this Court in which the proceedings were stayed but the said petition was disposed of with liberty to file discharge application. Thereafter, appellant was taken into custody. He submits that the appellant never misused the liberty granted by this Court and there is least possibility of conviction as the co-accused has already been acquitted by the trial court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant but does not dispute this fact that on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the local police against Jangi, Putan, Arun Kumar and Ram Kumar, the trial was proceeded but Jangi and Arun Kumar have died during the course of trial and Putan was acquitted. He also submits that the charge-sheet was submitted by the CBCID against the appellant.
7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of F.I.R., impugned order, the judgment of trial court and the fact that initially the co-accused persons were exonerated by the Investigating Officer of the local police, later on the charge-sheet was submitted by the CBCID as also the fact that the co-accused Surendra Kumar Shukla has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2023. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur is hereby set aside.
9. Let the appellant- Ramkumar 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:-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
Saurabh Yadav/-
