Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 353 of 2019 Appellant :- Ram Prakash Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava,Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A., for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Basti, in Special Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2015 (State Vs. Ramroop Yadav and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and Section 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Lalganj, District-Basti whereby appellant Ram Prakash Yadav has been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) da dha of the S.C./S.T. Act and appellant Sonu Goswami has been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) da dha of the S.C./S.T. Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that after investigation, police has submitted final report. He further contended that even though, appellants have been summoned by the trial court on an application under 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that role of firing is alleged to be assigned to the appellant (Ram Prakash Yadav) but no one has sustained any fire arm injury.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by trial court. Impugned order has been passed on the basis of statement of P.W.- 2 (Shyam Dayal) and P.W.- 2 (Rangeela) before the court.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants.
Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and as such, this appeal stands dismissed.
Accordingly, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, it is directed that in case the appellants file their bail application and also pray for interim bail, their prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) S.C./S.T. Act.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the appellants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Rohit