Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5786 of 2018 Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Braham Singh,Sushil Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Bramha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by Additional Session/Special Judge (SC/ST), Amroha, in Bail Application No. 1748 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 353 of 2018, under Sections 147, 316, 323, IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha, whereby the bail application of the applicant has been rejected.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against six accused including the appellant, alleging that on 08.06.2018 they assaulted Smt. Poonam and Manoj, but no injury was found on the body of the injureds.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 316, 323 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, but during the investigation the Section 316 IPC was not found to be made out by the investigating officer, hence charge sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 323 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2018 (about more than three and half months) having no criminal history. There is no independent witness against the appellant. Prosecution case is not supported by the medical evidence. No injury was found on the body of the injured. The entire prosecution story is absolutely false, baseless and concocted. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. There is no evidence against the applicant and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that criminal history has been properly explained.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.09.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Manoj Kumar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Swati