Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5847 of 2017 Appellant :- Rampat Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
List has been revised. Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite parties no.2 & 3 nor any counter affidavit is on record. However, counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 4.8.2017 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Moradabad.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copy of lower court record) and documents available with the learned A.G.A. (instruction and case diary) are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant nor he is named in the F.I.R. Only role of the appellant is that he was the caretaker of the house in question where the victim girl had been kept. Offence has been committed by co-accused. Role of the appellant is distinguishable with the role of co-accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has no concern with this case. He was not the caretaker of the house in question. In fact, the said house belongs to Jhunna. Entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement are false. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and discretion vested in it was exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. It is next contended that the appellant is in jail since 19.7.2017.Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant has committed the present offence. Offence was committed having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant Rampat involved in Case Crime No.372 of 2017 under Sections 342, 368 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chandausi, District Sambhal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 ss