High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved On:- 13.04.2023 Delivered On:- 24.04.2023 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6251 of 2022 Appellant :- Amit Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gyan Prakash Hon'ble Siddharth, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material placed on record. 2. 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 15.07.2022, whereby
Legal Reasoning
the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 173 of 2022, under Sections- 364, 302, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Eka, District- Firozabad. 3. There is allegation in the FIR that co-accused, Devendra Singh, Durgesh and Kali son of Devendra Singh had beaten the informant and her husband using caste related words and a report under the provision of SC/ ST Act was registered on 15.06.2020 by them. Accused persons were making efforts to get the matter compromised but it could not take place. In this case Thakur Manoj Singh was witness. Co-accused, Devendra Singh, himself caused an incident under Section 307 IPC and implicated co-accused, Manoj Singh and husband of informant, Dinesh Singh, in the 2 aforesaid case. In the case under Section 307 IPC her husband has gone to court at Etah on 18.04.2022 but he did not returned. On 19.06.2022 dead body of her husband was recovered. Acid was thrown on the face of the deceased and his death was caused by gun shot injury. She stated that Devendra Singh along with co-accused persons, Durgesh and Dhiraj, have caused his murder. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of false implication of the appellant who is not named in the FIR. He has been implicated on the basis of the statement of co-accused, Manoj Kumar. FIR was lodged on 20.06.2022 after the inquest and post-mortem proceedings of the dead body of the deceased. The investigating officer collected evidence that the appellant was last seen with Thakur Manoj Kumar and the deceased in the afternoon of 18.06.2022 in District court- Etah. On the basis of information given by the informer, story was introduced that Thakur Manoj Kumar had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and Thakur Manoj Kumar, killed the deceased with the help of the appellant. The appellant was implicated on the basis of the C.D.R details of calls between him and Manoj Kumar. In the C.C.T.V footage collected by the investigating officer from a wine shop, the appellant, co-accused, Manoj Kumar and deceased were found sitting in an Eco-car belonging to Amit Sharma and nothing more. The arrest of the appellant was shown with Thakur Manoj Kumar. The pistol recovered belongs to co-accused, Manoj Kumar and not the appellant. Charge sheet has already been submitted against the appellant who is aged about 25 years and has no criminal history to his credit. The telephonic conversations with Thakur Manoj Kumar were only regarding hiring of Eco-car of the appellant. In the second statement of the informant, she has not stated anything abou t the appellant. From the statement of the witness, Naina, the motive of crime has been assigned to co-accused, Manoj Kumar, who had illicit 3 relationship with the wife of deceased. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. 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 appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. In the C.C.T.V footage, the appellant is last seen with the deceased and co-accused, Thakur Manoj Kumar. The witnesses have named him. 6. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 15.07.2022 is, hereby, set aside. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is no credible evidence against the appellant nor any motive for him to commit the alleged offence. Although he has been last seen with the deceased and co-accused in an Eco-car but there is no evidence or motive which may compelled this Court to believe that the appellant caused the murder of the deceased. Even otherwise this is the first implication of the appellant and he is aged about 25 years only. 8. 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; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant 4 being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials 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. 9. Let appellant, Amit Sharma, 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 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 8. 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 appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open 5 for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law. 9. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law within period of one year after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment. 10. 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. 11. The criminal appeal is allowed. 12. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week. Order Date :- 24.04.2023 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad