High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 199 of 2022 Appellant :- Rishabh @ Bhola Gaur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Singh,Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Despite service of the informant/opposite party no. 2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf, therefore, Court proceeds to decide this case on its merit. notice upon Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No. 4443 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 308, 452 IPC and Sections 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohna, District Kanpur Nagar, and enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial.
Legal Reasoning
In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that informant Vineet Kumar lodged the first information report on 25.10.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 24.10.2021 against 17 named accused persons, namely, Vishal Kariya, Arun @ Banaha, Vishal @ Baba Don, Sachin, Akul @ Phoda, Ritik, Bhola, Rahul Atri, Karan, Rahul Kariya @ Bauna, Deepak, Manish @ Bandar Tentwala, Pankaj Dixit, Vishal Gupta @ Kariya, Suraj @ Bauta, Abhishek Thakur @ Bulla, Ankit and 4-5 unknown persons making general role of assault to his elder brother and father by iron-rod, sharp-edged weapon against the accused persons. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that general role of assault has been assigned to all the accused persons including the present appellant. It is next submitted that as per prosecution case, two persons, namely, Amit and Ram Kishore have received serious injuries whereas referring to the CT scan report dated 24.10.2021 of injured Amit, it is pointed out that no abnormality has been detected in his CT scan report. So far as injury of injured Ram Kishore is concerned, it is submitted that as per his injury report dated 24.10.2021, two injuries have been found on his body. Injury no. 1 was in the nature of lacerated wound of 5.8 x 0.5 x muscles deep at right parietal area of skull and injury no. 2 was in the nature of abraded contusion of 2.8 x 3 cm at left parietal area and was kept under observation. In the CT scan report dated 24.10.2021 of injured Ram Kishore, multiple haemorrhagic contusions are seen in right parietal regions. Perifocal edema is present. On the strength of aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that it is not clear as to who is the author of the aforesaid injuries out of 17 named accused persons. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is languishing in jail since 05.12.2021. Lastly, it is submitted that due to heavy docket, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial of the appellant in near future. There is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that innocence of the appellant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, but did not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that 17 accused persons have been named in the first information report including the present appellant. The injured Ram Kishore has received two injuries and it has not been specified that as to who is the author of the said injuries. As on date there is no material on record to presume that there is danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasons as mentioned above, this Court is the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The impugned order rejecting bail of the appellant is liable to be set-aside and the appeal deserves 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 - Rishabh @ Bhola Gaur involved in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail. In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant. Order Date :- 14.9.2022/Shubham Digitally signed by SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI Date: 2022.09.14 18:26:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad