High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1303 of 2022 Appellant :- Rahul Pandit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Priyanka Devi,Dev Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balbir Singh,Ruksana,Shailendra Singh Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Upper Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mahoba in Bail Application No.01 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.407 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Mahoba. On the earlier occasion on 17.05.2022 an opportunity was given to learned counsel for the complainant to file counter affidavit but he did not file any counter affidavit and sought further time to file counter affidavit. This is unacceptable that time and again opportunity is granted to file counter affidavit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution starts with lodging of the FIr on 11.09.2021 whereby the incident is of 09.09.2021 under Section 364 IPC, lateron after finding the dead body of the deceased Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act has been added in the array of the sections. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is named in the FIR regarding the incident is of 09.09.2021, a longest FIR has been lodged by the complainant in which, it seems that the present case is hinges upon broken links of circumstantial evidence. There is nothing on record to indict the appellant in the present offence. The appellant himself has given information around 615 hours to the deceased's nephew Gajraj that his uncle is fleeing away, which suggest that the appellant is the author of the this murder, this is highly improbable of the account that no body after killing would give information to the nephew of the deceased. The body of the deceased was found new the railway track. The dead body have developed decomposition and empty bottle of desi liquor was also recovered near the dead body. No incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances with broken links, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant is the author of this offence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2019. Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode in which the appellant has been summoned and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Let the appellant-Rahul Pandit, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Suprintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Upper Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mahobaa, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 1.6.2022 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.03 12:21:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad