Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 6.9.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 312 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 922 of 2016, under Section 307 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur. Further, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail in the said case crime.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading the evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, allegedly, the incident relates to 11.11.2016 wherein complainant Umang Gaur along with the injured Amit Sonkar and Shyamu went to a 'Dhaba' for taking dinner wherein accused-appellant was present. There was some dispute between Amit and accused-appellant regarding payment of some money. Accused-appellant attacked Amit Sonkar by blade causing injuries on his neck. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that injury report shows that there was no swelling or other sign which shows that the injury was dangerous to life. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance upon statement of owner of the Dhaba that his Dhaba closes at about 11:00 P.M. and in the morning he came to know about the scuffle. It is submitted that accused-appellant has falsely been implicated.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant has also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of the trial/appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place. It has been pointed out that the appellant is in jail since 13.11.2016 and there is no likelihood of the trial/appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-
"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed further reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-
"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that accused-appellant is named in the first information report as well as by injured. Injury report shows that there were two injuries found on neck of the injured which were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The size of the injuries is such which was dangerous to life. The doctor also has stated that the injuries were grievous in nature.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that initially when the incident was reported by the informant to the police on 16.08.2019, the police reached on the spot and also conducted the inquest in the presence of the informant, but no such allegations were levelled by the informant. It is also evident that no anti mortem injury of strangulation has been found in the post mortem report.
In view of above facts and discussions, I find that the court below has not considered the case in the correct perspective and committed error by rejecting the bail application of the appellant-applicant vide impugned order dated 09.4.2021 and the same is liable to be set aside.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, and the observation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and law laid down in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 2 SCC 22, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of trial/appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail and the order of the court below may be set aside and reversed.
Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6.9.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 312 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 922 of 2016, under Section 307 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur, is hereby set aside and reversed.
Let the appellant- Manish Jagwani convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 781 of 2016, Case Crime No. 922 of 2016, under Section 307 I.P.C. & 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Kotwali, District Sitapur, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(iv) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(v) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 SP/SA