High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2029 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) First information report was lodged by the victim against three named persons namely Santosh Pasi, Harimohan Yadav and Hariyale. (b) The Investigating Officer has exonerated the named accused persons and the victim introduced four persons in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C.; (c) Co-accused, Mohammad Hazrat Azmal Shah having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. (d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2021. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 06.12.2021 is set aside. Let appellant/applicant, Lovelesh Singh @ Dev Murat 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 subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ; The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Ishan Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.24 09:50:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Appellant :- Lovelesh Singh @ Dev Murat Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Shri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Lovelesh Singh @ Dev Murat to set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi has rejected the bail application No. 95 of 2021 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 402 of 2020, under Sections 366, 376-D, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Karari, District- Kaushambi. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 15.12.2020 was lodged by the victim/ second respondent against three named persons namely Santosh Pasi, Harimohan Yadav and Hariyale. It is further submitted that after completing the investigation named accused persons exonerated by the Investigating Officer and the victim introduced four persons in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. out of four persons three persons namely Mohammad Hazrat Azmal Shah, Arun Kumar @ Golu and Mohd. Ibrahim have been granted bail by this Court as well as by Special Judge. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being questionnaires of the victim by questioning a leading question. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal history of 7 other cases which have been explained in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit, out of 7 cases, one case is attempt of murder, which is related to the year of 2007, in which appellant has been acquitted and one case of 2007 is related to murder, in which he has been granted bail by Sessions Court and other cases are minor offences, which is related to 110 of Cr.P.C., Arms Act, U.P. Control of Goondas Act, and Section 354 of I.P.C. and on the basis of aforesaid cases, Gangster Act has been slapped. It has also been submitted that co-accused, Mohammad Hazrat Azmal Shah having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2022 and the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 14.08.2021. The appellant has no criminal history except the aforesaid cases. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.