Allahabad High Court
Rahul Alias Monu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 November, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6800 of 2022 Appellant :- Rahul Alias Monu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as Sri Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Rahul Alias Monu to set aside the impugned order dated 7.9.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti has rejected the bail application No. 1431 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 85 of 2021 (Special Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2022), under Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 325, 504, 506 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dubauliya District Basti.
Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 10.06.2021 has been lodged against the appellant and 12 named and 5 to 6 unknown persons stating that when the first informant objected to the construction of the balcony of the land (Chajja) and was going home after complaining to Police Station, then the appellant and other co-accused Anuj @ Sonu, Jitendra, Monu, Ramu, Harish Anoop Kumar, Rakesh, Rajesh, Ram Balak, Jagdish, Rohit, Moloi, Rohit and 5-6 unknown persons assaulted the first informant and abused him caste derogatory words. His brother Ram Bahor, Satyavan, his son Ranveer and nephew Manjeet sustained serious injuries while intervening to the appellant and other co-accused persons. In the meantime, Mahipal of his village, whose money transfer shop is at Ram Lakhan Janki crossroads, who was going home after closing his shop and keeping the money of the shop in safe, even when he agreed, the appellant and other co-accused persons got enraged and attacked his shop. Tried to kill them and ransacked the shop and looted Rs.1,35,000/- and the other persons are ran away after throwing the car into the pond.
After lodging of the first information report, medical examination of the injured persons Ram Bahor, Satyavan, Ranveer, Manjeet, Mahipal was conducted. As per medical report, all the injured persons are sustained injuries which are simple in nature. After recording the statements of the injured persons and other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant and 12 other named persons. The appellant was arrested on 7.9.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that general allegation of committing marpit has been assigned to the appellant. No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellant. It is further submitted that cross-case being Case Crime No. 0084 of 2021 has been lodged by appellant's side under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, against the first informant and five named and 4 to 5 unknown persons. It has also been submitted that co-accused Rohit Chaudhary, having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 4293 of 2022 and the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal history of one minor case, which has been explained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 7.9.2022.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court 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 applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) General allegation of committing marpit has been assigned to the appellant;
(b) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellant;
(c) Cross-case being Case Crime No. 0084 of 2021 has been lodged by appellant' side under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, against the first informant and five named and 4 to 5 unknown persons;
(d) Co-accused Rohit Chaudhary having similar role has 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 7.9.2022, is set aside.
Let appellant/applicant Rahul Alias Monu 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 applicant 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant 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 :- 16.11.2022 CS/-