Heard Shri I.B.Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Singh Chauhan learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside order dated 27.5.2021 passed by the Incharge Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail No.87 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.170 of 2015, under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur.
As per the prosecution case, the son of the informant namely Munish Kumar went missing on 5.5.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. The informant had suspicion against the Pappu and Sunita as they assured the complainant that his son would return by 12 O'clock. The applicant is not named in the First Information Report.
It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the offence has been committed on 5.5.2015. The First Information Report has been lodged on the next date when the body of the deceased was found in the canal. In the First Information Report one neighbour and wife of the informant has been named. No one took the name of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the investigation has been transferred to District Lucknow and the investigation has been conducted by the local police of the Lucknow. It transpires during the investigation that sister of Manish Tripathi was having affair with the deceased. The investigation was again transferred to District Hardoi. A team of three inspectors was constituted. Still the name of the applicant has not surfaced in the Investigation. On 30.7.2018 the investigation was against transferred to CBCID. The prosecution witness Pooja in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has given last scene evidence against the co-accused Pradhan and also stated that the Shailendra Kumar had threatened the deceased Munish. In the meantime, final report has been prepared against Manish Tripathi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that against the present applicant except call detail record and last scene evidence there is no other evidence with the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant has surrendered before the court below on 22.3.2021 and he is in jail since then. The applicant has explained criminal history of 5 cases in the bail application.
It is submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer but they could not dispute that except the call detail record and last scene evidence there is no evidence against the applicant with the proseuction.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.5.2021 passed by the Incharge Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail No.87 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.170 of 2015, under Sections 302/201 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur, is set aside.
Let the appellant/applicant, Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant 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.
(v) The applicant 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.
(vi) In case the applicant 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.
The pending application, if any too stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Madhu