Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7572 of 2018 Appellant :- Ankit Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Khurshed Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kailash Choudhary
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody in Case Crime No.0379 of 2016, under Sections 147,148,149,34,302, 120B I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Learned Second Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, SC & ST Act, Gorakhpur, in Bail Application No. 3533 of 2018, Ankit Verma Vs. State of U.P. arising out of Case Crime No. 0379 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the FIR lodged by the informant Smt. Soniya @ Soni that on 23.08.2018 at about 8.00 p.m., accused/appellant and one Vivek Singh came out from the Wagnor Vehicle and asked from Shivaji about deceased Radheyshyam; that co-accused Vivek Singh called the deceased Radheshyam, then she came out along with her husband Radheshyam and after having talked for two minutes, appellant and co-accused Vivek Singh took her husband in car; that she found Sanjay Singh alias Chhote Singh, Dhananjay Singh and Ranjit Singh and three unknown persons were sitting in another car and in the morning, she came to know that her husband has been killed; that she is confident that accused/appellant and other accused have killed her husband; that spot map was prepared by the I.O. and a perusal of the said spot map, it is clear that incident took place at petrol pump where C.C.T.V. Camera has been installed; that the statement of security guard namely Bansh Bahadur Rai was recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. on 12.10.2018 and according to his statement, the co-accused Durgesh Shah and Rohit fired at the deceased and present appellant was not named by the security guard of the petrol pump; also the statement of salesman namely Drigpal Yadav of petrol pump was recorded by the I.O. and he has mentioned the name of co-accused Durgesh Shah and Rohit and not the present accused/appellant; that only role assigned to the present accused/appellant is that he had only accompanied the co-accused Vivek Singh in the Wagnor to the residence of the deceased and the deceased accompanied in the said Wagnor along with accused/appellant and co-accused Vivek Singh; that none of the witnesses have assigned the role of causing the death of the deceased by the accused/appellant; that no weapons were recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant; that accused /appellant has been falsely implicated in this case; that accused /appellant is in jail since 28.08.2018.
It has been further contended that co-accused Subhash Kumar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49771 of 2018 and Amit Kumar @ Guddu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48655 of 2018 have already been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.01.2019 and 20.12.2018. Since the role assigned to the accused/appellant is identical to that of co-accused, who also stands on the same footing, the accused/appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and also admitted that accused/appellant has no criminal antecedents and the case of present accused/appellant is identical to that of co-accused namely, Subhash Kumar and Amit Kumar @ Guddu.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the bail rejection order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Ankit Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions:-
1. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not seek adjournment if the witnesses are present in court.
2. The appellant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel on the date fixed for framing of charge and recording of the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. Appellant shall remain personally present in the court. In case of his absence without sufficient cause the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A of I.P.C.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled Order Date :- 26.2.2019 T.S.