Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3205 of 2021 Appellant :- Ram Adhin Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Yadav
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Shyam Lal, learned counsel for the informant; Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 26.07.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Case Crime No. 224 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 308 I.P.C.;
Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Mahuli, District - Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties states that the statement made on the last occasion was inaccurate. It has been thus submitted, the bail application of the co-accused Ravi Nath, Criminal Appeal No. 5166 of 2021 is still pending.
Accordingly, the present appeal has been proceeded on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 26.07.2020, the appellant is in confinement since then; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; as to criminal history of one case, it has submitted, the same has been explained; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, in the context of pre-existing political rivalry, the appellant has been falsely implicated and in any case over implicated. Referring to the statement of the injured Sushila Devi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit, the main allegation is against Ravi Nath and Ram Pal for causing the injuries to the deceased and the said injured Sushila Devi. The present appellant and two others are stated to have been standing outside the house of the deceased when the occurrence took place.
5. Then, reference has been made to the delay in the injury report. It is submitted, there is no explanation of the same. Referring to the injuries of six injured persons, it has been further submitted, those are simple in nature. The trial is stated to have just begun wherein PW-1 has been examined and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. Therefore, the present appellant is entitled to bail.
6. Present appeal has been opposed by learned AGA, who would submit, though Sushila Devi may have initially described the appellant and two others were standing outside the house when the occurrence began, at the same time, she has further stated, once the deceased and Sushila Devi had been pulled out from the house by the assailants, Ram Nath and Ram Pal, they were brutally assaulted by the appellant and two others, also.
7. Referring to the injury report of the deceased, it has been submitted, there are multiple serious injuries suffered by the deceased as have been described in the FIR and have been consistently corroborated by all the injured in their statement. As to the injuries suffered by Sushila Devi, it has been submitted that hematoma in the skull was recorded which is life threatening condition in itself.
8. As to the delay in recording of the statement, it has been submitted, in an occurrence of such a nature where terror had been created on the entire family of the deceased, there is no unexplained delay.
9. Learned counsel for the informant has also supported the submissions advanced by learned AGA. He has also emphasised the fact that in the occurrence young boy of 19 years was brutally done to death.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, in an occurrence of such a nature, injuries caused to six persons and death caused to one inside and about their own house is prima facie established. The extent of injuries caused to the deceased and the injured persons (both simple or grievous) itself indicate that the assault was made not by one or two assailants but by group of individuals. Therefore, the fact that exact role may not have assigned to the present appellant at this stage, may not weigh much.
11. Examined in the totality in an occurrence of such a nature, it would be in the best interest that the trial be expedited such that it concludes within a time bound manner, at every stage. However, no ground exists to grant bail to the appellant. In an occurrence of such a nature, releasing the accused person may have a negative impact on the conduct of the trail itself.
12. Without reaching any conclusion of guilt as may be established at the trial, prima facie in absence of any ground made, present appeal is dismissed with the observation that the learned court below shall make best efforts to prioritize the trial proceeding in this case as a case involving heinous offence. It is expected, no adjournment may be granted on the mere asking either by the accused persons or by the prosecution or the witnesses. All witnesses may be examined in a fixed time frame such that the trial may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Abhilash