Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1036 of 2021 Appellant :- Arjun Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singh,Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Piyush Dubey
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Heard Shri P.K.Singh and Mr.Kaustubh Srivastava,learned counsel for appellant, Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent and perused the paper book.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed setting aside the judgment/order dated 1.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, in bail application No.01 of 2021 in Case Crime No.252 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Shamsabad, District-Agra, whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.
It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence of any eye-witness in this case. It is also submitted that prosecution has created the evidence of 'last-seen' of one day before the murder of the deceased-Poonam. Learned counsel for the appellant attracted my attention towards counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 regarding the fact that in paragraph-15 of the appeal, it is specifically stated that there is no independent witness of the recovery and the same is planted. It is further argued that in the counter affidavit, this fact is not answered or denied by the respondent. It is also argued that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of mobile-phone of the deceased, blood- stained T-shirt and blood-stained knife and report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding chemical examination of blood-stained knife has yet not been received; in this way, the appellant is at all not connected with the commission of crime and at this stage, chain of circumstances is not complete. It is further submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2020.
Per contra, Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned AGA for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that deceased was last-seen with the appellant by one Sunny, who is an independent witness in this case; after that she was not seen with anybody, alive. It is further submitted that blood-stained T-shirt and knife have been recovered from the house of the appellant. Learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. Last-seen evidence is put forward by prosecution that Sunny had seen the deceased with the appellant and one Anjali. It has been informed that co-accused Anjali has already been granted bail. If that fact is deemed to be true for the sake of argument, then the last-seen evidence goes equally against the appellant as well as Anjali, while co-accused Anjali has been granted bail. Chemical examination report of blood-stained knife is still awaited. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be opined whether there was any blood found on the knife and if yes, it was human-blood. There is no independent witness of recovery of knife and T-shirt.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 31.10.2018 is, hereby, set aside.
Let the appellant-Arjun Sharma be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of 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 shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 LN Tripathi