High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120994 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6490 of 2024 Appellant :- Satya Prakash @ Manshukha Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5477 of 2024 Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6363 of 2024 Appellant :- Uttam Thakur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Singh Solanki,Pashali Slolanki Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Satya Prakash @ Manshukha, Akhilesh Kumar and Uttam Thakur- Appellants have filed these separate appeals under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, whereby their applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 97 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, have been rejected.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that according to the complainant himself, his daughter went missing in January, 2020 and a missing report in this regard was lodged at P.S. Hussainganj, District Fatehpur, and at that stage, no allegation regarding murder of his daughter Rajkumari was made by the victim's father. He submits that the FIR has been lodged on 12.3.2024 and the same is without any particulars, much less the details of the occurrence. It is pointed out that the accused persons have been falsely implicated and there is no evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to suggest their involvement in commission of the alleged crime, as even the dead body of the victim has not been recovered. Learned counsel for the accused have argued that though wife, of Satyaprakash namely Ragini was also named as an accused along with one Shiv Mohan, but during investigation both were declared innocent, and it shows that the version given by the complainant is not truthful. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the investigation of the case is complete but ignoring the material facts, the Special Court, Fatehpur has wrongly declined the concession of bail to the accused vide impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively. Learned counsel prays that the impugned orders be set-aside and the appellants be released on bail. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no.2, no one has appeared on his behalf. Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer has argued that the complainant's daughter namely Rajkumari was married to Satyaprakash on 24.3.2019, and when she did not meet her father, the complainant visited the house of Satyaprakash where the conduct of the husband and other relatives was found suspicious, thereby giving a reason to the complainant to lodge the case against the accused persons. According to him, it is for Satyaprakash to disclose the whereabouts of his wife, and the prosecution witnesses namely Virendra Kumar @ Bolu Valmiki and Satyawan Jatav in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that the rented accommodation was arranged for the couple because the marriage of complainant's daughter with Satyaprakash was not accepted by his parents. He refers to the statement of Satyawan Jatav to point out that when Satyawan had gone for work at Fatehpur, he met Satyaprakash there who was taking Rajkumari (deceased) for treatment as she was not well, and when the said witness asked him to accompany him, the accused Satyaprakash refused the offer. According to him, the impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.04.2024 passed by the Special Court, Fatehpur are based upon correct appreciation of prosecution evidence and the court has rightly rejected their application for bail. In the end, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the witness Satyawan Jatav is closely related to the complainant who is married to younger sister of deceased, and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is silent about the date of meeting Satyaprakash with ailing Rajkumari. Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for one of the accused Uttam Kumar submits that no motive is attributed to Satyaprakash or other accused persons and the allegation in respect of involvement of Uttam Kumar and accused Akhilesh is not contained in the FIR, which has been introduced subsequently. According to him the statement of Virendra Kumar is not at all connected to the alleged occurrence of murder. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, and no medical evidence regarding illness of Rajkumari or her homicidal death has been collected during investigation. The charges set-up by the prosecution against the accused would be tested during trial and the prosecution is yet to discharge the onus. The appellants are in custody since their arrest on 24.03.2024 and the investigation of the case is also complete. During the course of hearing it is not disputed by learned counsel for the State that the charges in the case have not been framed against the accused, therefore, it is clear that the trial in the case is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time to conclude. Thus, this Court finds that it to be a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellants. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.04.2024 respectively are set aside, the bail applications filed by the appellants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellants- Satya Prakash @ Manshukha, Akhilesh Kumar and Uttam Thakur, be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Decision
The appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Shiv