The acquittal judgment with regard to Case Crime No. 124 of 2003 and 106 of 2003 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned order dated 21.6.2019 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Bail Application No. 153 of 2019, (Parshu Ram @ Lala and another Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C and Section 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur, District Lakhimpur Kheri. The Presiding Officer has rejected the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 21.6.2019.
Counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants have been arrested only on account of their confessional statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has argued that the confessional statement was not voluntary. It is further argued that one of the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, although no confessional statement of the said co-accused was recorded. The counsel for the appellants argues that the appellants are in custody since 2.2.2019. As regard the criminal antecedents, the counsel for the appellants has argued that in Case Crime No. 124 of 2003 and 106 of 2003, the appellant no.1 has been acquitted vide judgment dated 27.9.2007. As regards the appellant no. 2, it is argued that he is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity as his name appeared only in the confessional statement of appellant no. 1. It is further argued that the appellant no. 2 is on bail in Case Crime No.2181 of 2006, under Section 3/25 Arms Act and has no criminal antecedents.
This Court vide order dated 20.9.2019 had granted a week and no more time to the learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit, however no counter affidavit has been filed.
Considering the submissions and the arguments raised at the bar, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.
Let appellants Parshu Ram @ Lala and Dhruva @ Dheeraj Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.
(ii) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019/SR