High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 888 of 2022 Appellant :- Sonu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Singh,Sharda Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Despite service of notice upon the informant / opposite party no. 2, no one has put in appearance on her behalf, therefore Court proceeds to decide this case on its merit. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 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 27.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad in Bail Application No. 377 of 2022 (Sonu vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, and enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial.
Legal Reasoning
As per the prosecution case in brief, Smt. Somwati who is mother of deceased has lodged an F.I.R. on 03.05.2021 at 14:23 hours regarding an incident which took place on the same day at about 03:30 hours against Khusboo @ Choti, Rajesh, Shaalu, Sonu, Bhushan and Pappan alleging inter-alia that on 03.05.2021 at about 03:30 AM, accused persons came to her house and told that Khushboo @ Chhoti has gone somewhere. Believing on them, his son Kapil accompanied them in search of Khushboo @ Chhoti. At about 07:49 hours, Rajesh made a call from the mobile phone of her son on the mobile phone no. 7982904284 of her daughter and told her that they will kill her brother and thereafter they have beaten him to death by brick. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by making concocted story that deceased was having affair with Khushboo @ Chhoti whereas the story set up by the prosecution is wholly improbable. It is also submitted that neither the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased nor deceased had gone with the appellant and other co-accused persons to search Khushboo @ Chhoti . It is the case of the prosecution that on the pointing out of the appellant, a blood stained brick has been recovered but there is no eye witness of the said recovery. Much emphasis has been given that the same has been planted by the police During investigation, the investigating ofÏcer has also not collected the CDR of mobile no. 7982904284, as such, there is no corroborative material against the appellant to connect him in the commission of crime except the allegation made in the F.I.R. Co-accused Smt. Shalu, Bhupendra Garg @ Bhushan and Khushboo @ Chhoti have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2021 and 10.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3794 of 2021, 3028 of 2021 and 3793 of 2021 respectively. The case of the appellant stands on identical footing to that of aforesaid co-accused persons, hence, the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 03.05.2021. 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 ad- judged 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 there is no evidence against the present appellant except the recovery of blood stained brick at the instance of the appellant. I also find that till date, no forensic report has come on record. The recovery of the brick can be easily planted. 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. The co-accused Smt. Shalu, Bhupendra Garg @ Bhushan and Khushboo @ Chhoti have been granted bail as noted above. 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 the 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-Sonu 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 :- 22.9.2022 Saurabh Digitally signed by SAURABH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.23 13:23:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad