Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2495 of 2018 Appellant :- Surendra Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Affidavit of Sri Rakesh Prakash Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mahrajganj has been filed by Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Notice on opposite party no.2-Ram Surat Prasad has been served personally, but none is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
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 16.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Mahrajganj (Surendra Vs. State of U.P.) in II Bail Application No.483 of 2018 in S.T. No. 227 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 346 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mahrajganj whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely Surendra, Shiv and Dharmendra on 3.7.2016 after eight months of the incident alleging that on 15.11.2015 they assaulted Bal Govind. He received injuries, but the injuries were found simple in nature. First Information Report was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 9.4.2018 (three and half moths); having no criminal history; he has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity; there is no independent witness; the injuries were found simple in nature 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 16.4.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Surendra 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 :- 31.7.2018 OP