Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1850 of 2021 Appellant :- Sahul Singh Jadaun Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Swatantra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Renu and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Notice was issued to respondent no.2 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned vide letter dated 28.07.2021 has submitted that the notice has been served personally. None is pressed for the respondent no.2.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Sahul Singh Jadaun against the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mainpuri in Bail Application No.2554 of 2020, (Sahul Singh Jadaun vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 606 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is challenging the impugned order on the ground that the same is based on misreading of record, is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and there is illegality in the impugned order. Further submission is that the FIR has been lodged naming three accused persons and one unknown person with the allegation that they committed maarpeet with Sarvesh Kumar who sustained injuries and was admitted to the District hospital, Mainpuri and he was declared dead on 07.09.2020. It has been further submitted that there is only one lacerated wound found on the body of the deceased and it shows that atleast two of the named accused persons must not have caused any injury to the deceased. Further submission is that the co- accused Shivaji @ Shivam, Rajan and Dimpal @ Dipesh Saxena have already been released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and the orders are annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. It has also been submitted that no weapon has been assigned in the FIR and subsequently by way of improvement one witness has been shown to have been stated to the I.O. that the maarpeet was committed by lathi-danda. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has committed apparent illegality while not understanding the case in proper perspective and ignoring the material facts which were on record. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Special Judge has gone through the record and finding that the person of scheduled caste community has been killed by the accused persons, has rejected the bail application. There is no illegality in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Considered the submissions of both the sides. It cannot be denied that no weapon has been assigned in the FIR and as per postmortem report only one lacerated wound has been found on the dead body. It shows that one of the accused might have assaulted the deceased and atleast some of the accused persons named in the FIR must not have assaulted. This fact cannot be determined at this stage which of the accused assaulted the deceased and gave the fatal wound. The benefit of this fact must go to the appellant. Two named accused persons have already been released on bail as their criminal appeals have been allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The learned Special Judge appears to have ignored this fact otherwise the conclusion should have been different. I find apparent illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mainpuri, is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Sahul Singh Jadaun be released on bail in Bail Application No. 2554 of 2020, (Sahul Singh Jadaun vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 606 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Mini