Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2291 of 2018 Appellant :- Pappu @ Shyamveer Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Despite notice that cause list will not be revised today, none is present for the opposite party no.2 nor any counter affidavit is on record. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.4.2017 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.) / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Budaun.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copy of lower court record) and documents available with the learned A.G.A. (instruction and case diary) are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that co- accused Atendra, Rakesh, Vimlesh, Pinku @ Kamlesh, Devendra, Tinku @ Jitendra and Satendra have been granted bail by different Benches of this Court. Copies of the bail order have been appended as annexure no.5 to the affidavit accompanying the appeal. The case of the appellant is not distinguishable. It is further contended that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and discretion vested in it was exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. Appellant is in jail since 17.11.2016. Impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant has committed the present offence. Offence was committed having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant Pappu @ Shyamveer involved in Case Crime No.418 of 2016 under Sections 364-A IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Ughaiti, District Budaun be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 ss