High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27467 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11156 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Shitla Prasad Modanwal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Shitla Prasad Modanwal with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Additional Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No. 14, Prayagraj and to release the appellant on bail in Session Trial No. 205 of 2023, arising out of case Crime No. 57 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The previous criminal appeal filed by the appellant praying for bail and setting aside the bail rejection order passed by the Court concerned has been decided on merits by the coordinate Bench of this Court and it has been dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2023. 4. Delayed trial and deposition of witnesses of fact which was not recorded at the time of disposal of first criminal appeal are the new and additional grounds in this second criminal appeal. It is submitted that at the time of disposal of first criminal appeal by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.8.2023 the statements of witnesses were not recorded before the trial court but subsequently the statements of witnesses of fact were recorded by the learned trial court and there are material contradictions in their statements as to the role played by the present appellant in the commission of the crime. It is also submitted that the eye witness / PW-1 Kalawati assigns the role of assault by Kauncha to Sharda, the present appellant, and co-accused Shital and this statement is corroborated by PW-3 Trishuldhari, but however the role of assault by Kauncha was assigned to Shital by PW-2, the other eye witness. In the same fashion PW-4, another eye witness has deposed before the Court that one accused, out of four accused persons, made an assault upon the deceased by Kauncha and no specific role of assault has been assigned by her to the present appellant. It is further submitted that in these circumstances a genuine suspicion arises in respect of role played by the present appellant in commission of the alleged crime. The witnesses of fact have been examined and the present matter does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 (Part-II) IPC. It is further submitted that since the deceased and other injured persons were not known to the appellant, as they were native of some other village, the present appellant was not aware of the fact that the deceased and other injured persons belonged to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that co-accused Munna and Sharda Mondanwal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.9.2024 and 15.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2913 of 2024 and 11360 of 2024 respectively. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 25.02.2023. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court and in the changed circumstances of the case in light of the statements made by the witnesses of fact before the Court, the appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the prosecution witnesses examined in the matter have supported the prosecution version and since it is a murder at a public place the appellant is not entitled for bail. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of fact, the clean criminal record of the appellant, the appellant is not responsible for the delay in conclusion of trial, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The learned trial court erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v). 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. 10. 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 :- 27.2.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad