High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126282 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4970 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Savitri Devi And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Mishra,Suneel Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 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 15.04.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mirzapur, has rejected the bail application of the appellant being No.598 of 2023 in Case Crime No.28 of 2023 under Sections- 147, 306, 342 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Vindhyachal, District- Mirzapur. The first information report lodged by one Ram Lal on 12.03.2023 was against four named persons namely Rajendra Bind, Arti, Mantora Devi and Ramesh and one unknown person. It is contended that appellant no.1, Savitri Devi is not named in the FIR. As per the allegations in the FIR, on 12.03.2023, the informant's nephew Mangalam Saroj barged into the house of one Rajendra Bind with some ulterior motive. It is surfaced from the record that the deceased Manglam Saroj was having dense affair with Arti d/o Rajendra Bind. After coming to know about this illegal act, being caught red handed from the spot, the deceased was shut inside the room by the accused-appellants. As mentioned, that the deceased himself barged into the house of Arti to meet her, the deceased was confined in the room and bolted from outside by named accused persons. It seems that out of sheer guilt he committed committed suicide while inside the room. On that, the present prosecution story is speaking against the appellants and other named accused persons. During investigation it was culled out that deceased and Arti s/o Rajendra were in relationship and there was some infatuation between them. During day time, the deceased barged into the house with ulterior motives and when he was caught red handed, family members confined him into a room. The appellants have no connection with this incident. Since, Section 306 has been fastened against the appellants, the prosecution has to establish Section 107 IPC which reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are not connected with the deceased and moreover, the deceased himself has entered into the house with ulterior motives and on being caught red handed, out of sheer guilt he has hanged himself. As per postmortem report, except ligature mark round the neck, there is no other injury on the person of the deceased and cause of death has been shown as asphyxia due to hanging. The appellant is languishing in jail since 15.03.2023. It is further contended that none of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are attracted in the present case and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be bailed out. Learned AGA as well as counsel for the opposite party No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that the appellants were cruel in their act and they have not opened the door till deceased had died by hanging. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, I find that the court below has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 15.04.2023 is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Let appellants- Savitri Devi and Ramesh Bind, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 appellants 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 appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The appellants 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 appellants are 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 appellants, 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 criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 13.6.2023 P Kesari Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad