High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5721 of 2022 Appellant :- Ranjeet Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Babita Upadhyay,Sanjeev Kumar Gaur 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 FIR was lodged against the appellant and 19 other named persons; (b) General role has been assigned against all the named accused persons; (c) No specific role has been assigned to the appellant; (d) The appellant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2022; (e) Co-accused, Jagtar Singh @ Pappu having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 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 order dated 02.08.2022 is set aside. Let appellant/applicant, Ranjeet 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 appellant alongwith 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 :- 17.11.2022 Ishan Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.18 09:50:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard Ms. Babita Upadhyay,, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravnindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record. Despite service of notice upon second respondent, none has appeared. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Ranjeet Singh to set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit has rejected the bail application No. 1456 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 317 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 436, 435, 506, 427 I.P.C and Section 3 (2)(iv), 3(1)(s), 3(1) (Chha), 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Madhotanda, District- Pilibhit. Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 13.07.2022 at 19:45 hours was lodged against twenty persons including the appellant regarding an incident said to have been occurred on same day at about 14:30 hours stating that in the year of 1989 a lease was allotted to the husband of second respondent along-with 14 other persons and possession was also handed over to them. It is further alleged that about 10 years ago, the accused persons took possession forcibly, in this regard various complaints were made. On 26.06.2022, Halka Lakhpal and other revenue authorities again handed the possession to the lease-holders. The accused persons stopped the cultivation work on 13.07.2022 and also set on fire the huts, assaulted and abused with caste derogatory words. 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 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427, 435 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and other 19 named accused persons. It is further submitted that there is general allegation of committing marpeet and ablazing the hut of the first informant. There is no specific role/involvement has been attributed to the present appellant. It is further submitted that and land dispute is pending between the State and appellant with regarding to the property in question, over which hut was situated. It has also been submitted that co-accused, Jagtar Singh @ Pappu having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 5645 of 2022 and the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 28.07.2022. 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 Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. 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.