Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3332 of 2020 Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Verma,Pushpraj Yadav,Ravi Sahu,Sanjay Kumar Sahu Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the paper book.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2019, under sections 307, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S.Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:
Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the impugned order of the court's below is illegal and perverse. The court's below has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. In supplementary report of injured, there is no injury on the vital part. The co-accused Sanjeev @ Kake Yadav and Kalu @ Vipul have been enlarged on bail, bail orders are annexed as Annexure nos. 7 and 8 to the affidavit.
On behalf of the State these arguments have been repelled by contending that the role of the applicant is not identical to that of co-accused, who have been granted bail. The role of the appellant is main role of firing, which hit the thigh of the injured.
The statement of injured Sandeep, who has sustained fire arm injury has stated that Rahul, who was intoxicated condition, fired with country made pistol and other co-accused persons inflicted injuries with lathi and danda.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view that the appellant is in jail since 02.09.2020 having no criminal history. The appeal is allowed and the order dated 19.10.2020 is hereby set aside.
Let appellant, Rahul, be released on bail in Case Crime No.306 of 2019, under sections 307, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S.Modinagar, District Ghaziabad, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
(ii). 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 of the Indian Penal Code;
(iii). In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 AK Pandey