Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4975 of 2019 Appellant :- Sonu Yadav @ Sachendra Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ali Hasan,Om Prakash
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Om Prakash for Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No.1167 of 2019 (Sonu Yadav @ Sachendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2019, under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, P.S. Premnagar, District- Jhansi, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has next submitted that as per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that victim-deceased, Patiram had borrowed money on interest from the appellant and on having failed to return the said borrowed money to the appellant on 03.04.2019 at about 4:00 PM, the appellant visited the house of the victim and insisted for the return of the borrowed money having failed to return the borrowed money, the victim was very much worried consequent to which at 7:00 PM, he jumped into the well and committed suicide. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that at the time of the said incident, the family members of the victim were very much present in the house but they did not lodge the report promptly and only on the next day the FIR was lodged at 1:40 PM the vital delay has not been explained at all. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even taking the allegations made against him in the FIR to be true, there is no evidence to show that the appellant in any manner abetted or goaded the victim to commit suicide and in case on account of being hyper sensitive in nature, if the victim had committed suicide as alleged then the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. Even as per the allegations made in the FIR since the victim was not able to pay back the borrowed money, he under stress jumped into the well and committed suicide on his own, which cannot be attributed to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that appellant is in jail since 30.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie a case for bail is made out and in case, if the appellant is released on bail, there is no chance of his fleeing away from judicial process or tampering the witnesses.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the appellant is in jail since 30.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, the appeal has substance. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 27.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No.1167 of 2019 (Sonu Yadav @ Sachendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2019, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed.
Let the appellant Sonu Yadav @ Sachendra Singh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The 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 appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The 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 appellant to prison.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Zafar