High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3342 of 2022 Appellant :- Padam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Singh Dahiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) First information report was lodged against the appellant and 13 other named persons; (b) First informant was not the eye witness of the incident; (c) Statement of the eye witness Smt. Dharamwati Devi, wife of the deceased, was recorded after three months of the incident and no specific role has been assigned by her to the present appellant; (d) General allegation of indiscriminate firing has been assigned to the present appellant; (e) Co-accused Vineet Kumar @ Vintee Baba and Man Singh have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.8.2022 & 3.8.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189 of 2022 & 2399 of 2022 respectively. 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 orders dated 25.2.2022 & 6.6.2022 is set aside. Let appellant/applicant, Padam Singh 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 :- 25.11.2022 T. Sinha Digitally signed by TRIPTI SINHA Date: 2022.11.29 09:46:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the second respondent is taken on record. Heard Shri C.P. Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material on record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Padam Singh to set aside the impugned order dated 25.2.2022 & 6.6.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar has rejected the bail application Nos. 552 of 2022 & 2684 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 1091 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 14.12.2021 was lodged by the son of the deceased stating that on 14.12.2021 at 2.30 p.m. when the father of the first informant was fertilizing the field, at that time the appellant and 13 other named persons shot fire and committed murder of his father and after that they fled away from the spot. Before lodging the first information report, inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted on 14.12.2021 at 18.45 hours on the basis of information of ward boy. Postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted on 15.12.2021 at 12.20 p.m. As per postmortem report, three fire arm entry wound and one exit wound were found on the person of the deceased and tattooing was present in the area of 13 cm. x 15 cm. on front of forehead and both side of face, 2 bullets of size 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. yellow metal sealed were also recovered from the body of the deceased. Time of death, as opined by the doctor, was one day old. After recording the statements of the first informant, wife of the deceased Dharamwati Devi and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant and co-accused Vineet on 18.2.2022. Investigation against other 12 persons is pending. The appellant was arrested on 18.12.2021. 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 was lodged against the appellant and 13 other named persons. The first informant is not eye witness of the incident. The incident took place at the field of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the fact that who had taken away the dead body from the place of incident because the inquest proceedings were conducted at the hospital. It is further submitted that after three months of the incident, statement of the eye witness Dharamwati Devi (wife of the deceased) was recorded. As per statement of Dharamwati Devi, appellant and four other persons having deadly weapons in their hands, but she had not received any injury. No specific role has been assigned by the said witness to the appellant. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation one last seen witness was also introduced by the Investigating Officer namely, Azad, who stated that he saw the appellant and other co-accused persons running away from the place of incident. It is further submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the fact that who is the author of the fire arm injuries. It is further submitted that the appellant had criminal history of six cases related to year 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2013 and 2019 and in one case the appellant was not charge sheeted. All cases are related to minor offences punishable up to seven years imprisonment. In all cases the appellant was granted bail by the court below. It is further submitted that co-accused Vineet Kumar @ Vintee Baba and Man Singh have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 8.8.2022 & 3.8.2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189 of 2022 & 2399 of 2022 respectively. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2021. 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. and learned counsel for the second respondent have supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. But they could not point out any material to the contrary. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that there is land dispute between the first informant as well as appellant's side. It is further submitted that 31 persons, named in the FIR of 2008, were attempted to encroach the house of the first informant, however, she fairly admits that there is no dispute with regard to appellant only. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the second respondent further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.