Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3949 of 2018 Appellant :- Bheem Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
In para-3 of the counter affidavit, filed by the learned A.G.A., it is stated that notice on opposite party no. 2 has been served. Copy of which has been filed as Annexure-C.A.-1. It is deemed to be sufficient. Learned counsel for the complainant is not present.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 31.07.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Aligarh in Bail Application No.2878 of 2017 (Bheem vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 120 of 2017, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged on 11.4.2017 against four accused persons, namely, Bheem, Karan, Vishan and Rupendra after five days of the incident alleging that on 6.4.2017 they shot fired at Hemant with gun and he received one gun shot injury.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.6.2017 (more than one year); having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity; general role has been assigned and single injury was found on the body of the injured; it is not clear who is the author of the injury; there is no independent witness; F.I.R. was lodged under Section 394 I.P.C. also, after investigation Section 394 I.P.C. was found false and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 31.07.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Bheem involved in aforesaid case 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:-
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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 OP