Rahees v. State of U.P), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1687 of 2021 Appellant :- Rahees Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prabhat Kumar Srivastava,Prakhar Srivastava Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of 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 5.1.2021, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, in Bail application No. 63 of 2021 - (Rahees Vs. State of
Legal Reasoning
U.P), arising out of Case Crime No. 489 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411, 120-B I.P.C & Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Lisharigate, District Meerut. As per prosecution case in brief, on the information given by one, Saleem FIR dated 6.6.2019 was lodged against unknown person alleging inter alia that a box was found lying in vacant plot from which bad smell was coming out. When police reached there and opened the box they recovered a dead body which was packed in a bag and on the dead body injury was found on the head. The photograph of unknown body was published in newspapers. Thereafter Sunil Kumar, brother of the deceased along with other family members reached at police station and identified the said dead body as a body of his brother Balveer Singh. On 7.6.2019 postmortem of the deceased was conducted in which doctor has opined that time of death is about 4-5 days before and cause of death has been shown as asphyxia due to strangulation.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is not named in the FIR and there is no eyewitness of the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, as disclosed by brother, daughter and son of the deceased that he was missing from 4.6.2019 at 9 P.M. whereas postmortem dated 7.6.2019 of the deceased indicates that time of death of deceased 4-5 days before. Therefore, the prosecution case is not corroborated with the postmortem. It is further submitted that on the basis of information given by the informer, Rahees (appellant) and co-accused persons, namely, Ishtiyak and Hakimuddin, who are father and brother-in-law of the appellant, were apprehended by the police on 9.6.2019 and their false confessional statements were recorded by the police showing that they have strangulated the deceased by gamchha and later on in order to complete the chain, investigating ofÏcer has shown a false recovery of gamchha and a brick on the pointing out of the appellant and aforesaid co- accused persons whereas on the said gamchha and brick no blood was found. It is further submitted that recovery of one E- rickshaw of the deceased was also shown from the possession of the appellant and aforesaid co- accused persons alleging that by the said E- rickshaw they were going to court to meet their counsel. There is no direct evidence against the appellant, except the confessional statements of the appellant and aforesaid co-accused persons. It is pointed out that Ishtiyak and Hakimuddin have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.11.2020 in Criminal Appeal Nos.6485 of 2019 and 5639 of 2019. Hence the appellant who is languishing in jail since 9.6.2019 having no criminal history to his credit deserves to be released on bail. In case the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate with the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the bail and contended that on the joint pointing out of the appellant and co-accused persons, E-rickshaw of the deceased was recovered, but they do not dispute that except their confessional statements, there is no direct evidence of the murder of the deceased against the appellant. They also do not dispute that on the recovered gamchha and brick no blood was found and aforesaid co-accused persons have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the fact that under the similar accusation co-accused Ishtiyak and Hakimuddin have been granted bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the appellant has also made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable 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 Rahees 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 30.3.2022 M. Tarik Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.03.30 18:12:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad