Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4358 of 2019 Appellant :- Yashpal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Notice has been issued to the Opposite Party No.2. Office report dated 16.08.2019 shows that notice about the pendency of the present appeal has been served upon the Opposite Party No.2, however, despite service of notice, none has appeared on his behalf.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad in Bail Application No.1327 of 2019 (Yashpal Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.167 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pachokhara, District Firozabad seeking his release on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that FIR has been lodged against as many as 20 persons, however, general role of assault has been assigned to them.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that even according to the prosecution own case, as many as four persons, namely, Lakhan, Dheeraj, Gaurav and Saroj have suffered injuries on their persons, however, X-Ray report of the aforesaid injured persons shows that no abnormality has been detected and their injuries are simple in nature.
The X-Ray report of Ramwati shows a fracture of lower end of right radius bone of right wrist region, however, in her statement, she has not specified to to who had assaulted her and general role of assault has been assigned to as many as 20 persons.
The injury report of other injured Prem Kishor shows that lower end of left radius bone of left forearm has been fractured, however, in his statement also, general role of assault has been assigned to as many as 20-25 persons and no specific role has been assigned to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that as per the statement of the victim Gambhir recorded under Section 161 CrPC, appellant along with Vikas is said to have assaulted him by lathi danda. The injury report of Gambhir shows that he suffered single injury on his head, however, the author of the said injury has not been specified.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 28.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit, as such, prima facie a case for bail is made out.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that the appellant is in jail since 28.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit. He has further submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant Yashpal involved in Case Crime No.167 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pachokhara, District Firozabad 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
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 prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Nadim