Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3929 of 2019 Appellant :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Zafar Abbas,Grijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal appeal has been filed U/s 14(A)(2) of S.C./S.T. Act against the order dated 12.04.2019, passed by Spl. Judge (SC/ST) Act, Allahabad, by which the bail application of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1903 of 2019, (Gyan Chandra Yadav vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201,323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trives (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Karachhana, District Allahabad has been rejected vide order dated 12.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has next submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR and the name of the appellant was disclosed in the statement of one injured Satyajeet Singh. His statement has been recorded after two months of the incident, in which general role of assault have been assigned to the applicant along with other co- accused persons namely Sobhnath Yadav, Badalu Yadav, Jata Shankar Yadav @ Pandit. However, neither in the statement of first informant nor in the statement of other two injured witnesses namely Bablu Sonkar and Babol Pandey any specific role has been assigned to the present appellant.
Perusal of record shows that accused Anoop Kumar Sharma has been named as main accused. The co-accused Anoop Kumar Sharma is said to have hit the deceased by butt of his country made pistol on his head, which has been found to be fatal and finds support from the postmortem report. General role of assault has been assigned to the appellant and the other injuries have been found to be on the non-vital part. The other two injured witnesses and the first informant in their statements has not specifically nominated the present appellant, to have participated in the incident, as such prima facie a case for bail so far as the appellant is concerned, is made out. He has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 07.03.2019 and he has no criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact and the fact that the first informant and two other injured witnesses have not specifically named the appellant to have participated in the incident, even in the statement of Satyajeet Singh, general role of assault has been assigned to him.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, the appeal has substance.
The impugned order dated 12.04.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed.
Let the appellant Gyan Chandra Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201,323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trives (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Karachhana, District Allahabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned and one surety shall be family member of the applicant, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant shall regularly appear on the date fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, it will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Court for cancellation of bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 204, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 v.k.updh.