Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3006 of 2021 Appellant :- Robins Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shekhar Gangal,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri N. I. Zafri learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shekhar Gangal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay Sharma, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh in bail application no. 4712 of 2020 rejecting the bail application of the applicant in Case Crime No. 275 of 2020, u/s 307, 323, 354B, 452, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gonda, District Aligarh.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that for the incident of 19.10.2020 the present FIR was lodged on 20.10.2020 at 18:09 hours by Smt. Bhura Devi against four named accused persons including the appellant with the allegation that all the accused persons have barged into the house of the informant and started hurling castiest abuses and meanwhile, the appellant Robins has given a fire arm injury to her son Madhav. Not only this, they have misbehaved with the lady folk of the house and looted Rs. 1 lakh. The learned counsel for the appellant has clearly indicated that there is a material shifted in the prosecution case that the injured Madhave and the informant Smt. Bhura Devi in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have attributed the role of fire arm injury to the co-accused Dhananjay who has already been enlarged on bail in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1247 of 2021 vide order dated 27.08.2021. So far as the loot of Rs. 1 lakh is concerned, in the statement of Roshan Lal recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., who is husband of the informant, has raised his eye brows only on the basis of some suspicion, has leveled this allegation of loot but there is no recovery of any material so as to substantiate the allegation of alleged loot. It is further contended that since the incident has took place in the room after barging inside the house, not in the public. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the co-accuse Dhananjay who has already been granted bail. It is further contended that he case of the present appellant stand on the better footing than the case of the co-accused Dhananjay.
Learned AGA as well as Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and moreover the injured himself has turned hostile and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the appellant Robins, 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.
Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C. community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.
All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. Aligarh who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.
With the observation the present stands allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 Nisha