Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5417 of 2019 Appellant :- Chhote Lal @ Lalu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Navin Kumar Pandey,Raj Kumar Sharma,Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Vivek Tripathi, holding brief of Shri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") is targeted against the order dated 27.7.2019 whereby the Bail Application No.115 of 2019 of the appellant was rejected by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad in Case Crime no.151 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maudarwaza, District-Farrukhabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is one of the named accused persons in the F.I.R. and co-accused Pushpendra Yadav and Sachin were admitted on bail by C-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing their respective Criminal Appeal Nos.5943 and 6381 of 2019 on 17.3.2021. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the case of appellant is similarly situated qua the said co- accused persons, therefore, his appeal should also be allowed. The appellant is languishing in jail since 17.6.2019.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute or raise any objection with regard to the fact that this is a case of parity.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, applying the principles of parity and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant-Chhote Lal @ Lalu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 27.7.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 M. Kumar