Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4290 of 2017 Appellant :- Surjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Neelam Pandey,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and Sri Ajat Shatru Pandey, learned counsels for the appellant, Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant Surjeet to set aside the order dated 25.05.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Bulanshahar in Case Crime No. 1174 of 2016, under section 326A, 342 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar by which the bail of the appellant was rejected by the trial court.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 25.09.2016 at about 06:00 pm when Smt. Nirmala wife of the complainant was working with the complainant at their field at that time Surjeet, Paramjeet, Veer Pal and one unknown person reached there. Paramjeet was having country-made pistol in his hand he pointed out the country-made pistol at the head of the complainant and tied the complainant with the tree of mulberry and threw the acid/burning material on his wife and due to it the face, both shoulders and the back of the wife of the complainant was burned. Complainant raised the alarm then Harendra, Sumit and other person of the village reached their they untied complainant from the tree.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application strongly and they submitted that it is a heinous offence which is committed by the accused- appellant. In report of the medical examination it is found that Sulphuric acid was throwned on the complainant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that there is enmity between the parties and due to that enmity appellant is falsely implicated in this case. In the FIR nowhere is mentioned that the eyes of the complainant were blindfold thus as per the FIR complainant and victim have seen the occurrence with their eyes even then it is not specifically mentioned that out of four accused which accused threw the acid on Smt. Nirmala. As per FIR when the complainant raised the alarm Harendra, Sumit reached at the spot and they untied the complainant but Harendra and Sumit in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that they were informed by Lilu at 07:30 pm that someone has threw the acid on the wife of the Jai Prakash when they were going towards the field of complainant then they saw Jai Prakash and his wife coming by tractor they met Jai Prakash and his wife on the tractor on the way. Thus in their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. witnesses Sumit and Harendra have not supported the prosecution version. In the FIR it is said that four accused beated the complainant and victim Nirmala. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Nirmala has stated that all the four accused beated her and her husband but there is no injury report on the file to support the version of prosecution.
It is worth mentioned that as per the prosecution itself there is a tube-well near the field where the occurrence took place but it is not the case of prosecution that as first aid they tried to threw the water and wash the wounds of injured Nirmala by water. It is also worth mentioned that as per prosecution the complainant and his wife came to village by the tractor of Parminder but Parminder in his statement has no where stated that the complainant also came to the village by his tractor he has simply mentioned that he took Nirmala by his tractor for the village.
Considering these fact, in my opinion it is a fit case for bail. Appeal is allowed and order dated 25.05.2017 is quashed.
Let appellant Surjeet involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- 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.
Learned counsel for the complainant also prayed that the trial was directed to disposed of the case expeditiously. Appellate court is directed to decide the case, expeditiously, preferably, within six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to any party.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Swati