Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4696 of 2019 Appellant :- Punit Chauhan And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sukrampal,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Umar Khan
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The case is peremptorily listed today.
Despite service of notices upon opposite party no.2 none has responded on his behalf.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 12.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Bail Application No.2596 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.230 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ganga Nagar, District-Meerut.
Contention raised by the applicant is that there is a cross case of the incident in which both the parties have sustained injuries. There is no plausible justification coming forward regarding the injury sustained by Akhil, Sunita, Sandeep and Vidha. This FIR was got registered against nine named accused persons and after investigation the police has dropped the name of Ravi, Chhotu @ Rohit and Rahul and submitted the charge sheet against rest of the accused persons. It is contended by the counsel that coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted bail to Akhil @ Nikhil, Vikas, Krishna and Sandeep. The case of the applicants stand on similar footing qua these persons who have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The applicants are languishing in jail since 05.06.2019 having no criminal antecedent to their credit and are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, 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 applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicants-Punit Chauhan and Sumit Chauhan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANT 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 APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANT 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 wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 12.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act,Meerut, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Abhishek Sri.