Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3345 of 2021 Appellant :- Pannalal Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Singh,Anil Srivastava (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arvind Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 03.08.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Case Crime No. 20 of 2021, under Sections - 302, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections - 3(2)5 Evam 3(1)Da, Dha of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Act, P.S. Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi.
Core contention is that in this case not an iota of evidence exist nor head and tail can be compared at their respective places, because the death of Govind Das took place in the year 2010 and inquest was prepared, post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted and viscera was preserved but without any outcome till date. Now, there is no reason as to how and why the informant kept silent for over a decade after the death of Govind Das and F.I.R. by moving application under Section - 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged only in the year 2020. It is peculiar circumstance as to what prompted the informant to lodge the F.I.R. at some belated stage. It is relevant that in the year 2015, the son of the informant died under suspicious circumstances and cause of death could not be ascertained in the post mortem examination, therefore the viscera was preserved.
Now, as per the report, the death was due to drug poisoning. It being so, how can it be said that the Govind Das died through or by the instrumentality of the appellant, who purchased the land from person Girja Rani. Girja Rani purchased that land in the year 2000 from Govind Das. Vague and general allegations without any concrete evidence and without any circumstantial base, the appellant has been deliberately involved on ground of suspicion that appellant wanted to grab the land.
He being an advocate was in touch with the deceased mischievously by committing criminal breach of trust grabbed his property and facilitated purchase of the land of Govind Das to one of his junior advocate from whom he purchased it in the year 2013. This circumstance cannot be said to be penal but purely of civil consequences. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.07.2021.
While replying to the aforesaid argument, Sri Arvind Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the informant has narrated the entire episode that it so happened that Govind Das use to visit at the office of the appellant- Pannalal Kushwaha and was well acquainted and a fiduciary relationship was existing between Pannalal Kushwana and the deceased and Pannalal Kushwaha took advantage of the same and misled Govind Das to enter into sale deed being executed in favour of Girja Rani and it being so, the appellant when coming to know about the mischievous activities was shocked and he either mysteriously murdered or got murdered by and through the instrumentality of himself. The statement of one of the junior is also pointing out to the guilt of the appellant.
Learned A.G.A. has adopted the contention raised by learned counsel for the informant.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.08.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Pannalal Kushwaha involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -
1. The appellant shall co-operate in the investigation.
2. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
3. The appellant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
4. The appellant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 S Rawat