Criminal Appeal No. 5384 of 2022 · High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6439 of 2022 Appellant :- Chhotak Nishad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Maddheshiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari,Ashwani Kumar Pathak Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed today in Court bail order relating to co-accused Sangeeta Devi passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 5384 of 2022. It is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Ved Vyas Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ashwani Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 3406 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur. As per prosecution case, informant, Lalchandra Chauhan has lodged a first information report on 07.06.2022 at about 10:41 am to the effect that on 05.06.2022 at about 5.30 pm father of the informant Chhinak Chauhan and mother Phool Kumari were guarding the Mango orchard of one Sonu Pandey. While guarding the garden named accused persons, namely, Deep Nishad, Anurag Nishad, Ram Nath and other unknown person had beaten the father of the informant, Chhinak Chauhan and mother Phool Kumari with sharp aged weapons, sticks, kicks, fists and abused him with castiest remarks and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 05.06.2022, at about 6 p.m. the above named accused persons again entered into his house and beaten them due to which parents of the informant sustained grievous injuries and were admitted to ICU of the Decent Hospital, Gorakhpur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. It is submitted that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. His name has surfaced in the case subsequently on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witness Phool Kumari. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, only one injury (although it was mentioned twice) has been found on the person of the deceased Chhinak Chauhan. It is also argued that eye- witness Phool Kumari, wife of the deceased, has not been medically examined. It is also submitted that a general allegation regarding mar-peet with Lathi, Danda and fists has been assigned to the appellant by the witness Phool Kumari in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No specific role of assault has been attributed to the appellant. It is also submitted that similarly circumstanced co-accused Sangeeta Devi has been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5384 of 2022 entitling the appellant to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the appellant is a respectable citizen having no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 08.07.2022 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, the fact that the accused is not named in the FIR, the fact that similarly circumstanced co- accused Sangeeta Devi has already been enlarged on bail, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 08.07.2022 but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside. Let the appellant Chhotak Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That 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. (iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail. It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant. It is also 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/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order. Order Date :- 12.1.2023 Brijesh Maurya Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad