High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2896 of 2022 Appellant :- Vikram Singh Parihar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) The appellant is not named in the first information report; (b) Name of the applicant surfaced during investigation and there is no plausible explanation for this inordinate delay; (c) Co-accused Ayodhya Prasad @ Juddan, Basantey, Suresh Ahirwar, Ganpat @ Tunti and Santosh Kotedar have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 2.3.2022, 23.12.2021, 24.1.2022, 13.12.2021 & 18.11.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 46 of 2022, 5796 of 2021, 5815 of 2021, 5374 of 2021 & 4038 respectively; (d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.3.2022. 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.
Arguments
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Despite service of notice upon O.P. No. 2, none appears on his behalf. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 25.3.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi has rejected the bail application No. 434 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 92 of 2021, under Sections 147, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lahchura, District Jhansi. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 24.6.2021 has been lodged against the 11 named and unknown persons stating that on 23.6.2021, first informant went to take Rs.700/- from Pushpendra. On demanding money, Pushpendra started to abuse her and thereafter on 24.6.2021 Pushpendra along with other co-accused persons by using caste derogatory words entered into the house of the first informant and the neighbours, committed marpeet with them, broken household items and threatened with dire consequences. 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 has been lodged against 11 named and unknown persons. The appellant is not named in the first information report. As per allegation of the first information report, the incident took place in the house of the first informant. Name of the applicant surfaced during investigation and there is no plausible justification coming forward for this inordinate delay, who is claiming to be an eye witness of the incident. It is further submitted that co-accused Ayodhya Prasad @ Juddan, Basantey, Suresh Ahirwar, Ganpat @ Tunti and Santosh Kotedar have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 2.3.2022, 23.12.2021, 24.1.2022, 13.12.2021 & 18.11.2021 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 46 of 2022, 5796 of 2021, 5815 of 2021, 5374 of 2021 & 4038 respectively. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 14.3.2022. The appellant has no criminal history. 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 Sessions court 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.