Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2871 of 2018 Appellant :- Shani Singh @ Aneesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Manish Tiwary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Since the notice has been served in connected Criminal Appeal No. 2528 of 2018 in same case crime number, therefore, no notice is required to be sent to opposite party no. 2-Pinki again. It is deemed to be sufficient. No one is present on behalf of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 20.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No. 928 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.147 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B IPC and Section 3(1) (10), 3(1)(D), 3(1)(Dh) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Rohaniya, District- Varanasi whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons, namely, Manish Singh, Shani Singh, Ajit Singh @ Dumman, Raju Singh and Tilak Kumar Singh on 31.3.2016 after three months of the incident alleging that on 24.12.2015 they assaulted the first informant with intent to outrage her modesty and they also assaulted to her husband. Both received injuries but the injuries were found simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants is languishing in jail since 20.4.2018 (more than three months); having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated; no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutorix; injuries received by the husband of the prosecutorix is also simple in nature; during investigation final report was submitted; a protest petition was filed; further reinvestigation was done and in reinvestigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354B and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Actt and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of case being heard in near future.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.4.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Shani Singh @ Aneesh Kumar Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 OP