Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3119 of 2021 Appellant :- Ramu Alias Ram Autar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed by Sri V.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant today which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and wants to argue the case on merits.
The present appeal is targeted against the judgement and order dated 14.07.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Etah in Bail Application No. 1490 of 2021 in case crime no. 135 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Awagarh, District Etah. The appellant is behind the bar is 13.05.2020.
Contention raised by the counsel that the present FIR was lodged by Prempal against four named accused persons including the appellant. Contention raised by the counsel that as per the text of the FIR, the informant's son Amit have nurturing the relationship with the wife of Ujagar, this was severely objected by named accused persons who are closely related to Ujagar in the intervening night of 5/6.05.2020 around 1.00 in the night, they have taken away the deceased Amit to the field of Rajvir where he was killed. The FIR was registered on 06.05.2020 at 9.30 a.m. Contention raised by the counsel that on the basis of of some unfounded suspicion the name of the applicant has been incorporated in the array of the accused persons. The post mortem report reveals that there is singular gun shot injury over the person. It is not clear that who is the author of that fatal injury. So far as recovery of the illegal Tamancha is concerned, it has been recovered from the open field of one Dojiram, having no independent witness to the said recovery. Entire prosectuion case hinges upon the broken link of circumstantial evidence, based on conjectures and suspicion only. There is no eye witness account to the prosecution case. The appellant has got no criminal antecedent to his credit. Taking into account bail application of Girija Devi (Ujagar ki Patni) was enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 2274 of 2020 vide order dated 05.01.2021. The case of the appellant stands on similar footing.
Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant vehementally opposed the appeal by raising number of the factual as well as legal issued but could not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode in which the appellant has been summoned and the period of detention already undergone as he is in jail since 13.05.2020, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant-Ramu Alias Ram Autar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable 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 WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.
(iii) THE APPELLANT 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 IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS 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, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Abhishek Sri.