Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1221 of 2021 Appellant :- Deependra Singh @ Sintu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Parashuram Barnawal,Rajendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Deependra Singh @Sintu against the impugned order dated 22.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur passed in Bail Application No. 550 of 2021 (Dipendra Singh @ Sintu Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.598 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sikariganj, District- Gorakhpur, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.
The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person with the allegation that deceased Surjeet Kumar went out from the house at about 06:00 p.m. and did not return. In the next date morning some people told that a dead body has been seen floating in a pond. The dead body was of Surjeet Kumar. Therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came in light only on the basis of suspicion arising out of the statement of one Suneeta, who happened to be the sister of the deceased and she stated that she had love affairs with the appellant and this fact was known to the deceased, therefore, on this basis the appellant was arrested. He was forced to make a confessional statement and a false and fake recovery of alleged weapon used in the commission of offence was shown to have been recovered. Submission is that the said weapon has no bloodstains and it can hardly be connected with the commission of offence. It has also been submitted that during investigation, after a long gap, 2-3 witnesses have been examined by the Investigating Officer to the effect that they saw and heard the accused threatening the deceased. Further submission is that there is no other evidence against the appellant nor at the relevant time when the death was caused, even nowhere near to the pond or near to the place of occurrence. The case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are yet to be established during trial. Learned Special Judge has ignored this aspect from the case and in the mechanical way without applying judicial mind he passed the impugned order by which the bail application was rejected. Submission is that the impugned order suffers from illegality and not sustainable in law. Further submission is that appellant has no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant and there is enough evidence on record against the appellant and considering all the facts and circumstances the learned Special Judge has passed a legal order, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Considered the submission of both the sides, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown person. Nobody has seen the appellant causing death of the deceased. Contrary to it, evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer to the effect that the deceased and the appellant were in touch regularly on their phone. This fact further creates a suspicion that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. It is also noticeable that the deceased was servant of the appellant and if the case of relationship with her sister of the appellant is accepted, there was no need for the appellant to cause death of the deceased. The deceased was not in a position nor it has been shown that he ever opposed the appellant. So far as the relationship between the appellant and the sister of the deceased is concerned, the confession has been recorded by the Investigating Officer and that has been made before the police, which has no evidentiary value. The weapon sickle recovered on the pointing of the occurrence has connection with the murder of the deceased is yet to be established as there is no bloodstains on the said sickle. The case appears to be totally based on circumstantial evidence and merely because the deceased was killed in a brutal way and in the statement of the sister of the deceased the love affairs of the sister with the appellant is not enough to come to a conclusion that the appellant must have caused death of the deceased. The circumstances are yet to be established and between the circumstances shown by the police against the appellant, relevant link is apparently missing.
Learned Special Judge appears to have been affected by the fact that killing took place in very brutal way as the medical report and post-mortem report shows and the deceased was from scheduled castes community. In the next, by this consideration the learned Special Judge appears to have passed the bail rejection application. I find that there is apparent illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Deependra Singh @ Sintu be released on bail in Bail Application No. 550 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Anil K. Sharma