Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5213 of 2019 Appellant :- Santu Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sukesh Kumar,Daksha Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed on behalf of appellants Santu Yadav and Satendra Kumar @ Chhotey for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 27.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Etawah in Bail Application No.1457 of 2019 (Santu Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime no.259 of 2018, under Sections 3(2)(V)/3(2)(5)(VA) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act and Section-
7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the S.O. Jitendra Pratap Singh had lodged the F.I.R. on 15.6.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 14.6.2018, in which it has been mentioned that there was free fight between the two groups. The F.I.R. was registered only against five named and 15-16 unknown persons, though after the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against as many as 22 persons attributing omnibus role of firing upon the deceased. The deceased in this case is one Sushma, a lady. Post-mortem report of the deceased reveals that she has sustained a single gun shot injury over her person and nine persons, who got injured, in their statements have assigned a general role of firing to all the accused persons. In such circumstances, it is impossible to identify the real assailants. Moreover, Co-ordinate Benches of this Court has allowed the criminal appeals of co-accused Ishu, Sunil @ Raje @ Rajesh and Akshay Kumar Yadav in Criminal Appeal Nos.5204 of 2019, 5190 of 2019 and 4971 of 2019. Submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that the case of appellants stands on similar footing qua to these aforementioned co-accused persons who have already been released on bail. The appellants are languishing in jail since 24.07.2019.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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 appellants have made out a case for bail.
Let the appellants-Santu Yadav and Satendra Kumar @ Chhotey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 APPELLANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANTS TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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 APPELLANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANTS 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 APPELLANTS 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 27.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Etawah, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 M. Kumar