Allahabad High Court
Babu Bhai Yadav @ Anshu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And ... on 2 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2116 of 2022 Appellant :- Babu Bhai Yadav @ Anshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Prasad Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.7484 of 2022 (Computerized CRN No.UPLKO10128502022) Crime No.15/2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 325 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Para, District Lucknow "Babu Bhai alias Anshu vs. State of U.P.", whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that the notice upon the opposite party no.2 has already been served personally. However, no one has appeared on his behalf to argue this appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case. His further submission is that the first information report came to be lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the co-accused and unknown persons. His name has surfaced on the basis of statement of co-accused. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in this case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the co-accused, namely, Govind Yadav @ Govind Kumar, Shivam Yadav and Raghuvir Yadav @ Raghuveer have already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.06.2021, 11.06.2021 and 19.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2021, 505 of 2021 and 933 of 2021 respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that in case, the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. The accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2022, who has no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the first information report. His name has surfaced on the basis of statement of co-accused. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in this case. The co-accused, namely, Govind Yadav @ Govind Kumar, Shivam Yadav and Raghuvir Yadav @ Raghuveer have already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 09.06.2021, 11.06.2021 and 19.07.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of 2021, 505 of 2021 and 933 of 2021 respectively. The accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2022, who has no previous criminal history.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.7484 of 2022 (Computerized CRN No.UPLKO10128502022) Crime No.15/2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 325 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Para, District Lucknow "Babu Bhai alias Anshu vs. State of U.P." is set aside.
Let the appellant, Babu Bhai Yadav @ Anshu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-
(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.
(b) 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, and
(c) 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.
(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.
(iv) The appellant 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 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.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) The appellant shall remain present, 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 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.
The trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 2.12.2022 Mahesh