Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 637 of 2018 Appellant :- Jagpal @ Lamba Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in custody in connection with an offence under sections 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, registered as Case Crime No. 265 of 2018, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut and applicant is in jail since 15.02.2018.
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 08.05.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, SC & ST Act Meerut, in Bail Application No. 1714 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the informant lodged the FIR with the allegations that on 12.02.2018 in the morning the informant Mahendra was sitting at his home and taking tea and his brother Bablu was taking bath at the hand pump outside the house; that Km. Sonam daughter of Bablu, his wife Smt. Suman were also doing household work near door; that suddenly the pradhan of his village namely Sant Singh along with three unknown persons came to the house of the informant and exhorted, the three unknown persons saying that "Yahi Bablu hai isne hamari bate nahi mani, is sale chamar ka kam tamam kar do", to which three unknown persons opened fire on his brother Bablu with weapons in their hand; that his brother after receiving fire arm injuries, fell down then and there; that the informant along with his sister-in-law, niece Sonam tried to catch hold of four accused but they have fled away threatening the informant and others; that initially a case was instituted under section 302, 307 I.P.C., however, subsequently section 120B I.P.C. was added; that during the course of investigation, the statement of the informant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the informant did not take the name of accused/appellant, however, co-accused Sant Singh was arrested by the police on 13.02.2018 and his confessional statement was recorded on the same day, wherein the name of present accused/appellant was taken by the co-accused Sant Singh as one of the conspirators; that accordingly the police added the section 120B I.P.C. and accused/appellant was arrested by the police on 15.02.2018; that the name of the present accused/appellant has come to light only in the confessional statement of co-accused and the statement of the wife of the deceased as one of the conspirators; that the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted on 28.03.2018; that accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case; that accused/appellant has no criminal history; that as aforesaid the accused/appellant is in jail since 15.02.2018.
It has been further contended that co-accused Shashi in Criminal Appeal No.2398 of 2018, Brahma @ Raj Aryan in Criminal Appeal No.5232 of 2018 and Smt. Seema in Criminal Appeal No. 2283 of 2018 have already been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 and 14.12.2018. Since the role assigned to the accused/appellant as one of the conspirators. It is identical to as that of co-accused, who also stands on the same footing, the accused/appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application vehemently, however, he has admitted the factum of parity and the release of co-accused namely, Shashi, Brahma @ Raj Aryan and Smt. Seema on bail.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the bail rejection order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.
The aforesaid impugned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Jagpal @ Lamba be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions:-
1. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not seek adjournment if the witnesses are present in court.
2. The appellant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel on the date fixed for framing of charge and recording of the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. Appellant shall remain personally present in the court. In case of his absence without sufficient cause the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A of I.P.C.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled Order Date :- 25.2.2019 T.S.