Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3154 of 2018 Appellant :- Shekhar @ Shikhandi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Yadvendra Kumar Yadav,Amar Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that notice on opposite party no. 2 has been served personally, but 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 14.3.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Court No. 2, Mirzapur in Bail Application No.450 of 2018 ( Shekhar @ Shikhandi vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.89 of 2018, under Sections 332, 353, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) da 3(1) gha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kachhawan, District- Mirzapur whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Son Lal, Arvind, Sajjan @ Laila and Shekhar @ Shikhandi alleging that on 26.2.2018 they assaulted Kalika Prashad (Gram Vikas Adhikari, Narainpur). He received five injuries and all are simple in nature.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused- Arvind has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.5.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 2355 of 2018.; the case of the appellant is not heinous with the case of the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail, hence the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity; he is languishing in jail since 7.3.2018 (more than four and half months); having no criminal history; there is no independent witness; he has been falsely implicated 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 and the case of the appellant is identical with the case of co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail.
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 14.3.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Shekhar @ Shikhandi 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 :- 25.7.2018 OP