Court No. - 52
1. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2702 of 2020 Appellant :- Pintoo Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh K. Dwivedi
2. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2703 of 2020 Appellant :- Rahul Rao Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh K. Dwivedi
3. Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2704 of 2020 Appellant :- Anshu Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh K. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, these have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.
These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.3.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. They are not named in the F.I.R.. There is no any whisper about their involvement in the matter. Referring to statement of witness Om Prakash it is also submitted that he was also the witness of inquest but nothing was disclosed by him at the time of inquest. F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of deceased but she also showed suspicion against one Sujeet Rao. Referring to entire evidence collected during investigation it is also submitted that appellants were implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. It is purely a circumstantial evidence case. Had the offence been committed by the appellants, motorcycle of the deceased would not have been returned to the family members. Deceased was habitual drinker. He was done to death by some other person. Motorcycle of the deceased was lying near the road side and when the appellants saw the motorcycle same was handed over to the family members of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act and further argued that appellants are in jail since 20.2.2020. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for informant as well as the learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that though they are not named in the F.I.R. and Om Prakash is witness of inquest yet during investigation suspicion was shown by the witnesses against the present appellants. They returned the motorcycle on the day of incident. This fact itself shows their involvement in commission of the present crime.
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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have 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 appeals are liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.
Let the appellants Pintoo Yadav, Rahul Rao and Anshu Tiwari involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2020, under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
5. The appellants 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 they 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.
The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such 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 :- 5.1.2021/safi Digitally signed by Justice Om Prakash Date: 2021.01.05 16:41:00 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad