Heard Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned counsel for appellant and Shri Prince Singh for respondents no.2 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate.
Present appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned order dated 21.9.2020, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail application No.20/2020 (Raja Singh vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Crime No. 294/2019, under Section - 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, police station - Achalganj, District - Unnao.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is dispute regarding work of contractor between appellant and the deceased as referred in the FIR by complainant Gaurav Singh. On the date of incident, i.e., 19.12.2019 the appellant was not present at 02:35 PM at J.S. Factory, Unnao where injured Vivek went to receive the payment from the factory. The appellant never assaulted the deceased with knife as narrated in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. Chhotu Yadav was not the companion of the appellant. learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that injury report of the injured Vivek has disclosed injuries sustained by him of simple nature. The medical documents of further management of his injury no.3 by surgery unit of District Hospital, Unnao or Hallet hospital Kanpur and X-Ray report as advised by the concerned Doctor has not been provided by the victim Vivek to the Investigating Officer. Even these documents have not been brought on record during pendency of the present appeal after getting the sufficient opportunity. Likewise, ingredients of offence punishable under Section SC/ST Act are not attracted on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Offier. The appellant is detained in jail since 24.12.2019. he will co-operate during the course of trial and will not misuse liberty of bail and he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 and learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the present appeal by submitting that for offence punishable under Section - 307 IPC intention of the accused person is material and nature of injury is not material. Moreover, the appellant has assaulted the victim Vivek on his chest, which is vital part of the body. Injury no.3 and 4 are seated on the left and right side of the chest. The concerned Doctor found incised stitched wound on left side of chest and of size 3 cm on right nipple of size 1x03 cm. The X-ray of injury no.3 was advised by the concerned Doctor and he was also referred to Surgery Department for further management of injury no.3. The injured was admitted in District Hospital, Unnao during period 20.12.2019 up to 01.01.2020. The fact of admission in hospital indicates itself that the appellant assaulted the injured on his vital part with intention to commit his murder. The appellant belongs to Schedule Caste category. If he would be enlarged on bail the appellant will certainly commit the same offence, because he is having enmity regarding the work of contractor in J.S. Factory and he is in competition with the victim Vivek.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Chhotu yadav has been enlarged on bail being jevenile by the appellate court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Jude vide order dated 22.9.2020 which has been perused by me. Copy of the order may be filed by the learned counsel for the appellant on record.
Considering the fact that no medical document of further management of injury no.3 by Surgery Department or X-Ray has been provided by the victim to the Investigating Officer nor it has been filed before this Court, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and enmity regarding work of contractor, without expressing opinion on merits, appellant be enlarged on furnishing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 21.01.2020 is set-aside.
Let appellant- Raja Singh alias Ram Pratap Singh alias Raj Pratap Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence.
(ii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.
(v) 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 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.
(vi) The appellant would not commit any offence in future and will not approach or harass the victim or complainant or their family members, or witnesses in any way, otherwise his bail shall be cancelled.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 mks