High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25820 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9249 of 2024 Appellant :- Sunil Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prakash Sharma WITH Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9303 of 2024 Appellant :- Zakir Ansari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Sushil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prakash Sharma
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The above two connected Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Sunil Prajapati and Zakir Ansari with the prayer to allow the appeals, set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.6.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2024 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5A S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shreerampur, District Deoria.
Decision
2. Since the above two connected criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same dispute, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 in both the connected appeals and perused the entire record. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that seven named including the present appellants and one unknown accused persons made an assault upon Prakash Prajapati, the informant with the aid of lathi, danda and iron rod and also hurled abuses, humiliated him and made caste related remarks upon him. Informant sustained serious injuries. He was medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that no such incident ever happened as the prosecution claims. It is also submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the present appellant and although the charge-sheet has been filed in this matter, but it is still not clear as to who was the principal offender and author of the crime. It is also submitted that during course of investigation, the informant himself had given an affidavit in favour of the accused persons, which was made part of the case diary by the Investigating Officer but despite that charge- sheet was submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that injured Neeraj Paswan has been examined as P.W.1 before the trial court and in the totality his deposition does not support the prosecution version, as he stated that the injuries were the result of an accident and no one had made any assault upon him. It is further submitted that the appellants have no criminal history to their credit. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and the bail applications of the appellants were rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 14.4.2024. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the bail applications and the appeals but however could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that P.W.1, the star witness of the prosecution, did not support the prosecution version in his deposition recorded before the trial court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside. 10. Let the appellants - Sunil Prajapati and Zakir Ansari involved in Case Crime No.93 of 2024 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) 5A S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Shreerampur, District Deoria, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad