High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3576 of 2022 Appellant :- Rahul @ Bhura Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ronak Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Despite service of notice upon the informant / opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
Legal Reasoning
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 10.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 1980 of 2022 (Rahul @ Bhura vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 246 of 2022, under Sections 323, 307, 452, 504, 506 325 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr. As per the prosecution case, informant has lodged an F.I.R. on 19.03.2022 with regard to an incident which took place on 18.03.2022 against four accused persons namely Sonu, Chunnu, Rahul (present appellant), Akash and two unknown persons alleging inter-alia that co-accused Sonu is having enmity with him on account of election of Pradhan. Due to said reason, on 18.03.2022 at about 11:30 pm, when his father Vijay Singh and brothers Vikal and Somveer were sleeping in the house, named accused persons along with two unknown persons entered into his house and in order to kill his father (Vijay Singh), started beating him. On making protest by his brothers Vikal and Somveer, they assaulted them and fired at them. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot by abusing derogatory words towards his caste. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is an admitted fact that on account of election of Pradhan, there was a dispute between the accused persons and the complainant, therefore, appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured Vijay Singh, Vikal and Somveer, it is submitted that they have not stated about the nature of injuries sustained to them and about their treatment. Referring to the injury reports dated 19.03.2022 of injured Vijay Singh and Vikal, it is pointed out that the injury no. 1 and 2 of injured Vikal and injury no. 1 of injured Vijay have been found as punctured wound which cannot be caused by lathi- danda or by fire arm. On the basis of said injuries, it is also submitted that the alleged incident has not taken place as the manner as alleged by the prosecution. It is also pointed out that some of the injuries of injured persons were kept under observation. Thereafter, injured themselves got their injuries examined in AIIMS and the report dated 19.03.2022 of the AIIMS have been brought on record in which nature of injuries have not been described. Later on, it is the case of the prosecution that the investigating ofÏcer during investigation, on the basis of said reports dated 19.03.2022, got a supplementary reports prepared on 27.04.2022 from the doctor at Bulandshahr wherein it is mentioned that the injuries are grievous in nature.
Legal Reasoning
On the basis of aforesaid facts, much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no explanation of delay of more than one month in getting the supplementary reports prepared by the investigating ofÏcer and even in the said supplementary reports, it is not mentioned that the injuries are dangerous to life. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 22.03.2022 and 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 but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter as argued on behalf of the appellant. 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, I find that so far as the punctured wounds which have been found on the body of injured Vikal and Vijay Singh are concerned the same are not corroborated from the prosecution case. I also find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that it is no where mentioned that the injuries are dangerous to life, this Court is of the view that the appellant has 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 Rahul @ Bhura 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 :- 8.8.2022 Saurabh Digitally signed by SAURABH KUMAR Date: 2022.08.10 10:24:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad