High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159245 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5102 of 2024 Appellant :- Golu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Golu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.05.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj in Case Crime No.531 of 2023, under Sections 147, 342, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Navabganj, District Prayagraj. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. Despite sufficient service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. 4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that deceased Govind Saroj, the husband of the informant, Smt. Rani Devi received a phone call on 19.11.2023 about 6:00 p.m. and left away his house. The informant rang several times to him but the phone was not picked up. Subsequently, she was informed by some child that her husband was lying in the house of Golu, the present applicant, and when the informant went there, she found her husband in unconscious condition and there were signs of several injuries on the different parts of his body. He was taken to the hospital but subsequently on 06.12.2023, he died of the injuries sustained by him. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the said incident was caused by the named accused persons Golu, Vikas, Jeet Lal Patel, Muneem and Deepu. After lodging of the F.I.R., the investigation started which has been culminated into charge sheet. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution story is totally false and bogus and nothing has been averred against the present appellant in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the informant, the wife of the deceased herself. It is next submitted that subsequently an improvement was made by the informant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that accused Golu @ Akash and Deepu @ Rakesh were the persons who had taken the husband of the informant from his house but this fact is missing in the F.I.R. itself. It is also submitted that the informant was the eye witness only of the fact when her husband was leaving his house. It is next submitted that there is no motive of the alleged crime assigned to the present appellant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the present appellant. It is next submitted that he is languishing in jail since 17.01.2024 having no criminal antecedent to his credit and as such he is entitled for bail. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the theory of last seen of the deceased in the company of present appellant and co-accused Deepu has been proved by the statement of the informant herself and the mother of the deceased as well and after some time he was found seriously injured in the house of the applicant. It is also submitted that several injuries have been found on the body of the deceased when he was found in the injured condition. It is next submitted that the deceased was a member of the marginal section of the society and was a member of SC/ST Community. The offence is very grave and serious. 7. 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. 8. 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 and particularly the fact that except the last seen theory which is also doubtful, there is no other evidence on record against the appellant and no motive has been assigned to him in connection with alleged crime of murder, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court also took cognizance of the fact that the site plan prepared by the I.O. of this case has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit and perusal of the site plan goes to show that the nowhere the house of Golu has been shown in the site plan neither the place where the deceased was found in unconscious state has been shown properly in the site plan. It appears that the I.O. deliberately left some lacuna in the investigation to entitle the accused to take benefit of the said omission. 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. 9 . Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 10. Let the appellant Golu involved in Case Crime No.531 of 2023, under Sections 147, 342, 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Navabganj, District Prayagraj 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. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. iv) 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. v) 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 12. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the Police Commissioner, Prayagraj for information and necessary action at his end. Order Date :- 30.9.2024 Fhd