High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1619 of 2022 Appellant :- Ramakant Alias Pappu Pandey Respondent :- State Of Up Thrugh Secretary Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajai Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Ajai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. Mr Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant / opposite party no.2 is not present whereas his name is shown in cause list. Earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 02.9.2021 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3430 of 2020 and thereafter the appellant has preferred second bail application before the concerned court below, which has been rejected vide order dated 07.2.2022, hence 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 07.2.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Bail Application No. 287 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, and Section 27/30 of Arms Act, police station Nawabganj, district Allahabad and enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of trial. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of sudden quarrel between the parties concerned. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, the main role of causing firearm injury to the deceased was attributed to the appellant and considering the said fact, his prayer for bail had been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.9.2021. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on a new ground, which has not been taken and considered earlier by this Court while considering the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is pointed that as per post-mortem report one metallic bullet size 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm was recovered from the body of the deceased and as per prosecution case one licensed revolver of 32 bore of the appellant was also recovered by the police on 21.2.2022, to which it is stated that the same was used in the commission of crime. Recovery memo dated 21.2.2022 has been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the afÏdavit. Thereafter, both the recovered bullet and revolver were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. In the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow dated 11.5.2022, it is found that the bullet (marked as EB-1) does not match with 32 bore revolver A-5559 A (marked as 1/2022). Therefore, the case of the prosecution that appellant caused the fire arm injury to the deceased from his aforesaid licenced revolver get falsified. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, it is pointed out that appellant has been in jail since 20.2.2020, but till date charge has not been framed. 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. 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 the prayer for bail has been pressed by means of the instant criminal appeal on the new grounds, which have not been taken and considered by this Court. I also find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, recovered bullet does not match with the recovered revolver. Further, 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 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 Ramakant Alias Pappu Pandey, 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 :- 19.9.2022 Ishrat Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ISHRAT Date: 2022.09.19 18:25:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad