Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4580 of 2021 Appellant :- Puneet Garg Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed today. Taken on record.
2. Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and; Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 10.9.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut, in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, under Sections - 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Ganga Nagar, District - Meerut, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 13.5.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 16.5.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, occurrence was purely accidental. The FIR allegations and the statements of the relatives of the deceased have been falsified by the recording of the CCTV. Further, reference has been made to the statement of the hospital staff to submit that the appellant had carried the deceased to the hospital for prompt medical attention. Unfortunately, he died. As to the occurrence, it has been vehemently urged, the appellant had not drawn his weapon from the holster and shot at the deceased rather, he had brought the weapon from inside his house to show it to the deceased and others, on their request. It accidentally fired causing the fatal injury. The applicant has remained confined for more than seven months. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits, at present, no inference of fact may be drawn. All issues may remain to be examined at the trial. Insofar as the injury has been caused by the firearm of the present appellant, no benefit may be had from the CCTV footage as admittedly, the incident had not been captured in that recording produced before the police. Ocular evidence of that occurrence fully supports the FIR allegations. As to the other evidence, the same was recorded belatedly under the influence of the present appellant, therefore, no benefit may be given of the same. Learned AGA also advanced similar submission.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, no inference of fact may be required to be drawn and none has been attempted. Inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the CCTV footage does not establish the exact manner in which the occurrence took place and the ocular evidence being relied upon by the prosecution does indicate that the deceased was shot at by the appellant with respect to money demand, therefore, no ground is made out to grant bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. However, it is expected that the learned court below shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Prakhar