Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15860 of 2021 Applicant :- Charandas And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicants, Charandas and eight others in connection with Case Crime No. 158 of 2020, under Sections 447, 188, 143, 269 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur.
Heard Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It is argued by Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime because the Station House Officer, Police Station Narahat along with his police party assaulted women, including one Smt. Rajkumari of village Baraudiya, Police Station Narahat, over the issue of construction of a temple of Sant. Shiromani Ravidas, and in that connection, Smt.Rajkumari, failing to get a case registered against the police personnel brought a private complaint before the learned Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, bearing complaint Case No.612 of 2020 on 11.12.2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) (dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Narahat. It is pointed out that in the said complainant, the State House Officer besides six other policemen are the accused. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged to forestall any complaint against them by the natives of the village against 100 unnamed offenders. It is argued that the applicants are not named in the FIR, but later on, their names have been introduced at the instance of the Station House Officer, after a complaint was filed by Smt. Rajkumari, before the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act. It is particularly argued that in the incident reported in the FIR, admittedly no injury has been sustained. It is argued by Mr. Tripathi, that the FIR is a figment of imagination and the handiwork of the Station House Officer, Police Station Narahat. It is also argued that the applicants were not present at the place of occurrence and they have never occupied the Gram Sabha land, about which, there is no tangible evidence on record. The history of two criminal cases are post incident and also foisted upon the applicants to browbeat the natives of the village in connection with the investigation already done and to obviate prosecution of the complaint against the police.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel, who has put in appearance privately on behalf of the Lekhpal, who lodged the FIR, submits that the applicants were occupying Gram Sabha land and it was in that connection that this FIR has been lodged. He has opposed the prayer for bail vehemently along with Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned AGA. It is particularly pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant and the learned AGA that there was encroachment on Plot No.325, (admeasuring 0.039 hectares) of Gaon Sabha land for the purpose of construction of a temple, which cannot be permitted. To this submission, Mr. Tripathi, has rejoined by saying that the land is still lying vacant and so far as the applicants are concerned, they are not at all party in any kind of encroachment of Gaon Sabha land.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that there is a complaint by a woman of the village lodged before the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, against the Station House Officer, Police Station Narahat and other policeman about certain offences, the fact that there is prima facie no tangible evidence on record to show that any encroachment has been committed by the applicants, the fact that the applicants' name have surfaced lateron during investigation, the fact that the criminal history of two cases are contemporaneous crimes about which, the applicants say that are a part of the present false implication, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Let the applicants, Charandas, Parsadi, Devendra, Sunil, Rajesh @ Rakesh, Mahesh @ Brajendra, Kissu @ Kirsu, Halke Bhaiya @ Ram Sahay and Bhanu, in connection with Case Crime No. 158 of 2020, under Sections 447, 188, 143, 269 IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur, be released on bail on executing their personal bonds and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicants shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.
iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicants are accused, or suspected of the commission.
v) The applicants 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(viii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.
Order Date :- 5.4.2021 NSC