High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7464 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that; (a) General role of marpit have been assigned to the appellants; (b) No specific role or allegations have been attributed against the appellants; (c) The offences are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment; (d) The appellants have criminal history of one minor offence, in which they have been granted bail. 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 21.09.2022 is set aside. Let appellants/applicants, Phoolchandra, Amit and Chotu 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. (vi) The applicants 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 applicant along-with 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 :- 15.11.2022 Ishan Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.18 09:49:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Appellant :- Phoolchandra And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prateek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Shri Prateek Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned A.G.A. submits that the information with regard to Criminal Appeal is served upon respondent no. 2. Service of notice is taken on record. Despite the service of notice upon second respondent, no one has appeared for second respondent. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been filed by the appellant Phoolchandra, Amit and Chotu to set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application No. 41 of 2022 of the appellant moved by them in Special Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that first information report was lodged against four persons including the appellants and general role of marpit have been assigned to the appellants. It is further submitted that no specific role or allegations have been attributed against the appellants. The place of incident is in front of the door of the first informant's house. It is further submitted that the offences are punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment. The appellants have criminal history of one minor offence, in which they have granted bail. It is further submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 21.9.2022. The appellants have no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellants of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellants are enlarged on bail, they 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. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellants are released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.