Ramakant Yadav v. State of U.P.), whereby his application under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111056 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5423 of 2024 Appellant :- Ramakant Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajit Kumar Pathak,Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar,G.A.,Rishi Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Ramakant Yadav- Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14- A(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur, in 2nd Bail Application No.134 of 2024 (Ramakant Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.105 of 2023, under Sections 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Meerganj, District Jaunpur has been rejected.
Legal Reasoning
The subject FIR was lodged by complainant Heeralal Saroj, who stated that on 9.9.2023, his son Ayush Kumar aged approximately 16 years, left for his school namely Kanchan Balika Inter College, Bandhwa Bazaar, Ramgarh to attend the classes on his bicycle. The complainant's son was student of 10th Class and at around 3:49 PM, he got information from Mobile No.9628945193 that his son has fallen unconcious and upon this the complainant left for the school and found his son lying dead outside the shop of Nagesh son of Bhagwan Prasad. He was taken to Dr. Ashok Patel, where he was declared dead. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that there is no role attributed to the appellant in the FIR, but he has been falsely implicated by the complainant by moving an application on 12.9.2023 with the allegations that his son was given beatings by the Principal. Learned counsel submits that as per prosecution itself, the complainant's son had left school and on his way to home, he fell down and died outside the shop of Nagesh son of Bhagwan Prasad, therefore, it would not be a case of homicidal death as it is equally possible that the boy fell down and suffered head injury resulting in death. While referring to the Postmortem
Legal Reasoning
Report, learned counsel submits that the victim suffered only one head injury which resulted in his death. According to learned counsel, the investigation of the case is complete and charge-sheet stands filed on 10.9.2023, but till date charges have not been framed and Special Court without appreciating the facts and circumstances properly, has proceeded to dismiss his application for bail. He prays that the impugned order be set aside and the application by appellant U/S 439 Cr.P.C. be allowed be allowed. The prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2-complainant. According to the learned counsel for opposite parties, the victim had gone to Principal to seek leave and on this, the boy was given thrashing and his head was banged against wall which caused head injury and later resulted in death. In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the statement of witness-Amabar Gaur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the opposite parties are unable to reveal the source of information derived by the said witness as concededly, he is not the eye- witness and not even the victim before his death informed about the alleged beatings by the Principal. The prosecution has also relied upon the statements of two more witnesses namely, Radhey Shyam Saroj and Sumit Saroj to contend that specific role has been attributed to the appellant, who further argued that the trial court has carefully examined the material on record while rightly refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Brijesh Singh (brother of Nagesh) to contend that as per version of this witness, the complainant's son was walking through the market and was holding a bicycle who had fallen down and had suffered head injury. According to learned counsel, it cannot be said that alleged injury was suffered by the complainant's son in the school. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that previously on the similar facts prayer made by the appellant stands declined by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023, therefore, the appellant does not deserve the concession of regular bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the appellant is in custody since his arrest on 16.9.2023 and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. During the course of hearing, it is also not disputed by learned counsel for the State that no other staff member of the school, much less the peon attached to the Principal or other teachers were examined during investigation to corroborate the stand of the complainant and other witnesses, however, since investigation of the case is complete, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the appellant behind the bar would not serve any useful purpose. Concededly, the trial is yet to be commence and there does not appear to be any possibility of its conclusion in near future, therefore, the Special Court ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of the accused-appellant. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant that in view of the order dated 21.11.2023, the concession be not extended to the appellant is without any merit as after the said order, period of more than 7 months has elapsed but the trial is yet to make any headway. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jaunpur would show that trial court has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it, in accordance with law, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 is not sustainable, and this Court finds that it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Ramakant Yadav be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Decision
The appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 8.7.2024 S.A.