Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3822 of 2018 Appellant :- Indrabhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arjun Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Shri Arjun Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant is present. Shri Vikas Singh appears for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA appears for the State.
On 2 January 2019, the learned AGA was granted seven days' and no more time to file a counter affidavit. However, no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 also states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14 May 2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Special Trial No.87 of 2017 (State vs. Chandrabhan Singh & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.363 of 2016 under Sections 323, 354A, 504, 506 IPC and Section Section 3(1)X, SC/ST Act, Police Station-Khaga, District Fatehpur, whereby the trial court has rejected the discharge application filed by the appellant.
A perusal of the order impugned that has been passed on the application filed by the appellant under Section 227 of the CrPC reveals that the record of the case was considered by the trial court and the counsel for the parties were heard and, after recording reasons, the discharge application has been rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to point out any material irregularity or error in the order dated 14 May 2018 passed by the trial court that would merit interference by this Court.
A perusal of the FIR dated 18 July 2016 that was lodged by the opposite party no.2 shows that the appellant was named therein and in which allegation has been made against the appellant of coming to the tube-well of the first informant and destroying the thatched roof over the tube-well and throwing away his bed in the canal and that the appellant alongwith others were openly showing off their threatening behaviour in public. In the application filed under Section 227 of the CrPC, the applicant has sought to pick holes in the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC by the witnesses before the Investigating Officer. The allegation in the application was that the appellant was a former village Pradhan. In the year 2015, the seat for Pradhan was converted from general category to scheduled castes category and the complaint had lost to a candidate who was promoted by the appellant and as such, due to enmity, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.
The contentions raised by the appellant can at best be his defence during trial but cannot warrant his discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC.
The appeal is lacking merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, at this stage the learned counsel for the appellant states that the bail application of the appellant may be considered expeditiously.
A perusal of the record of the case reveals that no order-sheet has been enclosed evincing the stage of the trial in the court below. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, in case warrants for appearance have been issued by the Sessions Judge against the appellant and in case no bail application has been filed by him, the appellant may file a bail application within ten working days from today, which shall be considered expeditiously by the trial court.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 SK (Jayant Banerji, J.)