Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7541 of 2017 Appellant :- Rajjo @ Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Govind Saran Hajela Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri G.S. Hajela assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajsh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA 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 20.11.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra arising out of Case Crime No. 732 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-
Sikandara, District Agra seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant the FIR was registered after considerable delay of a day against as many as 20 named persons including the present appellant. As per the FIR the incident is of the dead hours of the night. Initially there was an alarm of the co-accused persons that certain miscreants barged into the village for committing theft and thereafter a texture of the story was changed by giving a shape of taking the name of cast in a derogatory way. Thereafter, certain more name were added in the array of the accused persons who are 22 in number. It is further submitted that in this transaction one Nawab Singh has lost his life and Rakesh has sustained injuries. As per the postmortem report of the deceased the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. The injured person has sustained seven injuries besides this, there is one fracture. All injuries are simple in nature. It is not clear from the record that who is the author of the fatal injuries or injuries over the injured persons. There is no recovery at the pointing out of the appellant.
It is vehemently argued by Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant has long criminal history to his credit. To this effect, Sri Hajela has filed a supplementary affidavit and has explained his criminal history satisfactorily. He states that there are as many as four cases including the preset one and in earlier three cases though lodged against him but in the three cases they have turned into final report and thereafter protested and the protest petition was rejected.
Before parting with the above order, this Court seeks opportunity to peruse the recent judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018 on 20th March, 2018, though the judgement enunciated above, is on different issues altogether but there are certain useful statistics and observations cited therein The Apex Court referred therein that as per data (Crime in India 2016-Statistics) compiled by the National Crime Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs under the headings "Police Disposal of Crime/Attrocities against Scheduled Castes cases (State/UT-wise)-2016" and "Police Disposal of Crime/Attrocities against Scheduled Tribes cases (State/UT-wise)-2016" wherein it has been mentioned in the black and white that in the year 2016, 5347 cases were found to be false cases out of the investigated out of scheduled castes cases and 912 cases were found to be false cases out of Scheduled tribes cases, which were pointed out in the year 2015, out of 15638 cases decided by the courts, 11024 cases resulted in acquittal/ discharge, 495 cases were withdrawn and 4119 cases resulted in conviction. These are the ground realities and the law courts should not shut their eyes or ignore the harsh realities which is being misused by unscrupulous litigants, while taking the (mis)advantage of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. It would be useful to mention that various decisions of different High Courts indicating that this legislation, which was passed by the Members of the Parliament with the object to prevent the commission of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, is being misused rampantly and with impunity. In the case of Jones versus State [2004 SCC OnLine Mad 922: 2004 CriLJ 2755], the Madras High Court has mentioned that this Court has has brought to light the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against people of other community. This is another example of misuse of the Act. The purpose of bringing Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is to put down the atrocities committed on the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The law enforcing authorities must bear in mind that it cannot be misused to settle other disputes between the parties, which is alien to the provisions contemplated under the Act. An Act enacted for laudable purpose can also become unreasonable, when it is exercised over zealously by the enforcing authorities for extraneous reasons. It is for the authorities to guard against such misuse of power conferred on them. In another judgement pronounced in the case of Dr. NT Desai v. State of Gujrat [(1997) 2 GLR 942], it was observed as under:
"Bearing in mind this most embarrassing and excruciating situation created by the complainant when, this Court as a Constitutional functionary is duty bound to zealously protect the liberty of citizen, should it be helplessly watching and passively surrendering itself to sometimes prima facie ex-facie malicious complaint denying simple bail to the accused? In this regard, perhaps, it may be idly said that accused can be given compensation for the malicious prosecution and ultimate refusal of bail or anticipatory bail !! True, but then in that case what compensation can any Court would be in a position to give when the complainant is a person who is poor enough unable to pay a single pie?!! Not only that but in case complainant is rich and able to pay compensation then even can any monetary compensation ever adequately compensate the wrong accused suffered at the hands of the malicious complainant? It is here that the conscience of this Court stands pricked and terribly perturbed and indeed will have a sleepless night if what ought we do not know where the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case be quite innocent and accordingly a needy consumer of bail justice and yet is unnecessarily subjected to arrest taken to the police custody and then before Court because of denial of bail to him at this stage !!"
Similarly in a recent judgement of of Bombay High Court in Sharad versus State of Maharashtra [2015(4) BomCR(Crl) 545] it was observed that in hasten to add that such type of complaints for rampant misuse of the provisions of Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, are largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests. The Court was in considered opinion that the learned Members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fabric of the society is not damaged or ruined. They must ensure that exaggerated versions should not be reflected in the criminal complaints having the outrageous effect of independence of judicial and quasi judicial authorities so also the public servants and thus, it is not tolerable to put them in a spooked, chagrined and fearful state while performing their public duties and functions, therefore, it would be necessary to give a serious re-look at the provisions of the Act of 1989 which are being now largely misused is warranted by the Legislature, of course, on the basis of pragmatic realities and public opinion.
Taking into consideration the useful observations of the aforesaid enumerated judgements, this Court is of the considered opinion that that the FIRs/complaints, if taken on its face value and accepted mechanically like a gullible child accepts the allegations made in the complaint at its face value, it would be surely blundering and wandering away from the path of bail-justice, making itself readily available in the hands of the scheming complainant who on mere asking will get arrested accused on some false allegations of having committed non-bailable offence, under the Atrocity Act, meaning thereby the Court rendering itself quite deaf, dumb and blind mortgaging its commonsense, ordinary prudence with no perception for justice, denying the rightful protection to the accused becoming ready pawn pliable in the hands of sometime scheming, unscrupulous complainants.
Under the circumstances, the complicity of the appellant in all those cases is highly doubtful.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence, appeal as also bail application filed before the court below are allowed, order dated 20.11.2017 is set aside.
Let the appellant Rajjo @ Rajendra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
On the above terms and condition the present appeal stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Nisha