Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3798 of 2018 Appellant :- Kalyan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanchita Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,A1811,Amit Sawrop Tiwari
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Sri Devendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the informant/private-respondent in the Court today, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'Act, 2015') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahoba in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 101 of 2018 (Kalyan v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 0047 of 2018, under Sections 302, 506, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(5) of Act, 2015, Police Station - Kharela, District - Mahoba, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
As per prosecution version, on 13.05.2018, in the evening, Gajodhar, the elder brother of informant/private-respondent Shiv Kumar was returning from the market. At about 07.00 P.M., while Gajodhar reached near the primary school situated near the pond, the appellant and co-accused Kallu Singh, Rajju, Roshan and Baladeen assaulted him with blunt object 'lathi- danda' (wooden stick) and sharp-edged weapon 'bhala' and 'kulhadi', due to which he sustained fatal injuries, resulting into his death.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that role of causing injury by blunt object 'lathi-danda' is assigned to co-accused Kallu Singh and role of causing injury by sharp-edged weapon 'kulhadi' is assigned to co-accused Rajju and not to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant bears no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 16.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that similarly situated co-accused Kallu Singh, whose case is on the same footing as that of the present appellant, has already been admitted to bail vide order dated 11.01.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. - 3999 of 2018 (Kallu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another). Hence, the present appellant is also entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for private- respondent opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. However, they admitted this fact that role of the appellant is similar to that of co-accused Kallu Singh, who has already been granted bail by this Court.
Similarly placed co-accused Kallu Singh has already been admitted to bail, as mentioned above.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 12.06.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahoba is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant - Kalyan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 I. Batabyal