Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6279 of 2019 Appellant :- Sanjay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Pandey,Mohd. Arshad,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav,Mohan Lal Pandey Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Legal Reasoning
Case called out in revised call. Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none appears to represent opposite party no.2. Under circumstances with the aid and help of learned A.G.A., the Court is proposing to decide this appeal on merits. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and matter is ripe for final submission. Heard Mohammad Arshad, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad while rejecting the Bail Application No.5213 of 2019 (Sanjay Singh vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.251 of 2019, under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Murad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad. Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged by one Hari Shankar u/s 302 I.P.C. on 20.3.2019 for the incident said to have taken place on the same date in the mid hours of night, alleging therein, that the informant is a chowkidar in a factory and after the duty hours were off, the informant has seen the dead-body of Neeraj, who was also working in the same factory. Blood was oozing out from the head and nose of Neeraj. On this the present F.I.R. was lodged against unknown that some unknown person has assaulted him and done to death. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name of appellant has figure up in the statements of Amit and Deepak recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., who in their respective statements before the police stated that on the fateful day both of them were dead drunk and in that condition there was some heated altercation whereby in the stage of intoxication the appellant has given a push to the deceased which has turned to be fatal. There are five injuries over the deceased, out of which two are on the vital part of the body and the cause of death is Hemorrhage and shock on account of ante mortem injuries. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in a dead drinking condition out of sheer heated passion, the appellant might have given a push without any mental element. The act of the appellant comes within the realm of Exception (4) of Section 300 I.P.C. The appellant is languishing in jail since 09.08.2019. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above facts. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the complicity of the appellant, the role attributed to the appellant and the way and manner in which the deceased has lost his life, the period of detention undergone by the appellant, the nature of the offence, evidence, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Let the appellant-Sanjay 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT 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 AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 9.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 22.2.2022 M. Kumar Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.25 11:37:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad