Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4558 of 2017 Appellant :- Bhura & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Despite notice that cause list will not be revised today, none is present for the opposite parties no.2 & 3 nor any counter affidavit is on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.8.2017 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copy of lower court record) and documents available with the learned A.G.A. (instruction and case diary) are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that co- accused Ravendra Yadav and Pratap Singh Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.4.2018 and 20.12.2017 passed in criminal misc. bail applications no.4374 of 2017 and 4557 of 2017. The case of the appellants is not distinguishable. It is further contended that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and discretion vested in it was exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. Appellants are in jail since 1.8.2017. Impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants have committed the present offence. Offence was committed having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants.
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 appellants have 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 appellants is set-aside.
Let appellants Bhura and Kallu Yadav involved in Case Crime No.158 of 2016 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Akrabad, District Aligarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellants 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 appellants 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 :- 29.5.2018 ss