Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4548 of 2019 Appellant :- Pintu Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Tripathi,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shyam Shankar Mishra
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit on behalf of State which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Bail Application No. 3294 of 2019 (Pintu Sharma Vs. State of U.P & others), arising out of case crime no. 259 of 2019, under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by father of the deceased on 25.03.2019, under section 302 IPC against unknown person with the allegation that some unknown persons have committed the murder of her daughter and one Surendra Kumar @ Anu Chauhan. The appellant is not named in the FIR. His name has figured up in the confessional statement of co-accused Dinesh Kumar, who is in Delhi police. The co-accused Dinesh Kumar has stated in his statement that he has committed the murder of both the deceased by his service pistol. It is next submitted that there is no role of the appellant in the present case. The main accused Dinesh Kumar has clearly stated in his statement that the appellant has no knowledge about this incident and no offence is made out against the appellant under section 302 IPC. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.03.2019. The case of the appellant is distinguishable from the case of co- accused Dinesh Kumar.
Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant- Pintu Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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 APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 v.k.updh.