Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3504 of 2019 Appellant :- Bani Singh @ Vineet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.S. Rajput Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Bail Application No.1226 of 2019 (Bani Singh Alias Vineet Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.792 of 2018, under Sections 302/201 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh seeking his release on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that FIR has been lodged on 06.12.2018, in which, nobody has been named as an accused and it is alleged that on the said date at about 7:00 PM, his son had gone to answer the call of nature, however, he did not return back and when the first informant tried to search out his son, he found the dead body of his son lying near a government pond having injuries on his person. The said FIR was lodged against unknown persons.
Subsequently, on 07.12.2018, the statement of the first informant has been recorded, in which, he raised suspicion that the appellant might have murdered his son on account of rivalry. Thereafter, on 09.12.2018, the statement of Ramwati, mother of the deceased, was recorded, in which, for the first time, she has stated that on 06.12.2018 at about 7:30 PM, she had seen the appellant coming out from near the government pond armed with phawra, however, earlier this fact was not disclosed at all by the said witness.
Similarly, on 05.01.2019, the statement of Radha, wife of the deceased, has been recorded, in which, she has also stated that on 06.12.2018, she had seen the appellant going towards the pond, however, prior to these dates, neither mother of the deceased nor wife of the deceased had disclosed this fact to anyone.
It is next submitted that subsequently in order to connect the appellant in the present case, recovery of bloodstained phawra has been got made by the police at the pointing out of the appellant, however, said recovery is false and planted.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since10.12.2018 and he has no criminal history to his credit, as such, he may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that though two witnesses, mother of the deceased and the wife of the deceased had seen the appellant going towards the government pond and coming out from that place on 06.12.2018, however, the said fact was not disclosed at all prior to recording of the statements.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant Bani Singh @ Vineet involved in Case Crime No.792 of 2018, under Sections 302/201 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khair, District Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 /Nadim