Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3555 of 2021 Appellant :- Ashok Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pawan Singh Pundir
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Ashok against the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat passed in Bail Application No.1296 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.143 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.
The FIR was lodged in respect of incident dated 18.04.2021 on the same day against unknown persons by the informant namely Pramod in which allegation was made that her aunt Vedo had gone to the field of Babloo for cutting of wheat crops and some unknown person killed her. When Babloo at about 6:00 pm in the evening reached in the filed, he found blood stained dead body of the deceased. On the next day, the informant expressed his suspicion that the appellant Ashok might have caused the death of the deceased as he was having illicit relationship with the wife of the younger brother of the informant and it was opposed by the deceased. In the subsequent statement, he named two witnesses namely Ashish and Narendra and it was alleged that on 20.04.2021 they told him that they saw the accused-appellant beating by stick in the field of Babloo and the appellant seeing them hestly went to his filed with stick. Both the witnesses were examined by the I.O. and they gave the same kind of statements. Both witnesses went further and stated that the accused Ashok came to them on 24.04.2021 and regretted for his act requesting that not to give any statement against him.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused appellant is not named in the FIR and his name has come in light only on the basis of suspicion. It has been further examined that the two witnesses, who have given statement, they had stated as if the death was caused by beating the deceased by stick. It has been also submitted that from the perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that no injury of any blunt object have been found on the dead body and there is two incised wounds, one on the top of the head and other on the left side of chin. It has been next submitted that it cannot be said with certainty that the injury was caused by any blunt object. Further submission is that the statements of the witnesses are an afterthought and because of old motive that the accused appellant was having illicit relationship with the wife of the younger brother of the informant, the accused appellant was implicated. It has been submitted that the said version does not disclose any sound motive against the appellant on the basis of which the commission of the offence could be imputed on him. It has been submitted that the said witnesses have come before the I.O. at a belated stage and they have given an afterthought statements to implicate the appellant. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge did not take note of material aspect of the case and committed error in rejecting the bail application by the impugned order. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the appellant and there are circumstances showing the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.
Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The witnesses on the basis of which the police version seeks support have been examined at a later stage. The accused is not named in the FIR and his name has been taken by the informant only on the basis of suspicion. This possibility cannot be ruled out that the informant might have given an afterthought statement when examined by the I.O. on subsequent occasion. The circumstantial evidence are required to be established during the trial, therefore, I find apparent illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Ashok be released on bail in Bail Application No. 1296 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.143 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Mini