Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3486 of 2017 Appellant :- Chhottan Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Tiwary,Uday Shankar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar,Uma Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Allahabad, in Bail Application No. 1388 of 2017 (Chhottan Giri v. State), pertaining to S.T. No. 1257 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Section 3(2)(5) of Act, 1989, Police Station - Jhunsi, District - Allahabad, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution version, on 09.02.2014 at about 12 O'Clock in the noon, appellant Chhottan Giri along with co-accused Balu alias Pramod Giri, Kallu Giri, Sahtu Giri alias Krishna Kumar Giri, Hari Shankar Giri and 6-7 unknown persons came to the village of informant/private-respondent Manoj Kumar and due to enmity, they started throwing bomb on the villagers. Appellant Chhottan Giri fired on one Harish Chandra by his revolver, due to which he sustained injury and died on the spot. The accused caused injury to Shambhu Passi and Katka with bomb, due to which Shambhu Passi succumbed to his injuries on the spot. They also caused injury to Ranjeet Passi and Raju Bhartiya with bomb, due to which they sustained injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the accused, except the appellant, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. In their statements under Section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the witnesses of fact have not specified the fact that appellant Chhottan Giri had fired on deceased Harish Chandra. Role of firing is assigned to all the accused. Deceased Harish Chandra had sustained several injuries, including abrasion, which has not been explained by the prosecution. The gunner of the appellant - C.P. 951 Girija Shankar had also sustained bomb injuries and cross case has been lodged in this reference. Although the appellant has a criminal history of 15 cases, in 9 of them, he has either been acquitted or discharged. In the remaining 6 cases, he is on bail. He further contended that the appellant is languishing in jail for about 5 years and he should be released on bail as the trial of this case is not likely to conclude in near future.
Per contra, learned counsel for informant/private-respondent and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. They contended that role of causing firearm injury to deceased Harish Chandra is assigned to the appellant. The informant and the injured persons have specifically stated that appellant Chhottan Lal had fired on deceased Harish Chandra, due to which he sustained fatal injuries. Deceased Harish Chandra had sustained single firearm injury. They further contended that the appellant has a criminal history of about 15 cases, out of which four cases are under Section 302 of IPC, four under Section 307 of IPC and two under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Accordingly, the appellant, being a history-sheeter and a heinous criminal, is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
It is a case of daylight occurrence. First information report has been lodged on the same day (09.02.2014) at 01.30 P.M., just after 1½ hours of the occurrence. Role of causing firearm injury to deceased Harish Chandra is assigned to the appellant.
The order of the trial court is based on substance and sound reasoning. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the trial court and the same needs no interference.
In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of this case.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 I. Batabyal