Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5063 of 2021 Appellant :- Krishna Pal Singh @ Kishun Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Abhijeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Heera Lal
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Heera Lal, learned counsel for the informant; Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The case was listed on 09.12.2021. On the request of learned counsel for the informant, it was posted for today. Today, in the cause list, name of learned counsel for the informant has been described as "Heera Lal Yadav". Upon the matter being taken up in the revised call, Sri Heera Lal, learned counsel for the informant first objected the hearing of the matter. He submitted that his name has been wrongly shown in the cause list. Therefore, the matter may not be heard today.
3. Since the last order was passed in his presence and on the request of Sri Heera Lal, the matter was proposed to be referred to the Bar Council. At that stage, learned counsel for the informant withdrew his request and argued the matter.
4. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 06.09.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ghazipur, in Case Crime No. 90 of 2021, under Sections - 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Sadat, District - Ghazipur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 29.04.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 18.06.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; as to criminal history of six cases, it has been submitted, the same has been explained. Thus, it has been submitted, the appellant has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2019 (wherein he was not named as accused person). He has also been granted bail in other cases being Case Crime Nos. 77 of 2019, 392 of 2017, 230 of 2021, 233 of 2021 and 253 of 2021; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, the appellant is not named in the FIR. Even then allegation of causing firearm injury has been assigned to the main accused Manoj Singh. During investigation, statement of the injured (now deceased) was recorded. He did not specify the role of causing firearm injury to any particular person. At the same time, he stated that Ramesh and Bal Kishan were also present. In his statement Ramesh specifically assigned the role of causing firearm injury to Manoj Singh. Twenty three days after the incident, statement of Bal Kishan was recorded wherein he first made accusation against the appellant. Insofar as recovery of firearm is concerned, it has been made from public place without any public witness. Thus, it has been submitted, the appellant has been falsely implicated. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit, the appellant has been assigned the role of hired shooter. Referring to the criminal history, it has been submitted, the appellant has a direct role in the occurrence.
7. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in face of the FIR allegation as supported by the statement of Ramesh and in face of non-specification of role of causing firearm injury by the injured, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained.
9. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.09.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
11. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Krishna Pal Singh @ Kishun Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
12. It is made clear, in the event of any attempt being made by the appellant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Abhilash