Allahabad High Court
Chotu @ Ramgopal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 November, 2020
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1785 of 2020 Appellant :- Chotu @ Ramgopal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudesh Kumar, Shikhar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Dutt Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard Sri Shikhar Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Chandra Dutt, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. no.2 have already filed their respective counter affidavits and copies of the same have already been served upon learned counsel for the appellant, but he refused to file any rejoinder affidavit.
3. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act") by the appellant challenging order dated 18.05.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IInd/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat in Bail Application no.747 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.78 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 354-Kha, 308, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 436 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gajner, District-Kanpur Dehat, by which the bail application of appellant has been rejected. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2020 has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') lodged by first informant/O.P. no.2, general allegations have been levelled against 31 persons including one unknown persons, without assigning any specific role to any person, with respect to incident which took place on 13.02.2020 at about 9.00 A.M., while all the accused persons allegedly armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons, with a common intention, had threateningly attacked several persons belonging to scheduled caste. They had molested the women in the house and also set ablaze the hut of one Bhuiyadeen, which was burnt to cinders. In the aforesaid incident, some of the villagers had sustained serious injuries, who were admitted to the hospital. It is also stated that apart from the named accused, about 10-15 persons were also involved in the alleged incident.
5. According to FIR, people belonging to Schedule Caste had organized Narrative (Katha) of Buddh-Bhim, which was held from 01.02.2020 to 07.02.2020, and on 08.02.2020, they had publicly organized a Religious Feast (i.e. Bhandara). On 12.02.2020, one Ravi son of Ram Singh along with some village boys, had tore off the photograph of Baba Saheb. That incident was informed to Gajner Police Station. But the said issue was subsidized due to interference of former Gram Pradhan namely, Suresh Singh Chauhan, who got the both parties enter into a compromise before the police. Thereafter, all of a sudden on 13.02.2020, the alleged incident took place.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the FIR general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, who were alleged to have came on the spot armed with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapons, but no specific role has been assigned to any accused as to who had used which weapon inflicting injuries to which individual of the other side. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drew the attention of this Court towards copies of medical reports filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, which reveals that in total 30 persons have been shown to be injured, out of them 18 persons had sustained simple injuries. Remaining 12 injured had been shown to have sustained single fracture each on their respective different parts of body such as hands, legs, fingers etc. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no injury has been shown which could be caused due to use of sharp edged weapon, as alleged in the FIR, and this creates serious doubt with respect to truthfulness of prosecution story. It is further submitted that the incident with respect to burning the hut belonged to Bhuiyadeen to cinders, is a false story portrayed by the prosecution. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it is stated that Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'I.O.') had not collected ashes of the alleged hut, which was said to have been burnt to cinders as per FIR version. Apart from that, even in the Site Map (Annexure 4 to the affdiavit) prepared by the I.O., no sign of hut, burnt to cinders, had been shown by him. In the Site Map, place 'A' has been shown as the place where accused persons have allegedly burnt the hut to cinders. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the complainant and in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of State, no specific denial has been made with respect to above discussed paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of facts that neither ashes of burnt hut were collected by the I.O. from the spot nor there is any whisper about burning the hut of Bhuiyadeen to cinders, the prosecution version appears to be totally false and fictitious.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that total 13 injured witnesses were adduced by the prosecution to corroborate the version of FIR and out of them only Ramwati wife of Ramanand and Guddi wife of Omkar had taken names of 22 accused persons, who were said to have been involved in the crime scene. Remaining 11 persons have made general allegations and simply reiterated the prosecution version as mentioned in the FIR. It is also pointed out that one Premwati wife of Gudda has taken the name of one accused Kapil Singh son of Shivpal Singh stating that he was equipped with stick and was involved in the scuffling.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the entry in G.D. dated 23.02.2020 (Annexure-8) to this appeal) wherein Section 308 IPC has been added on the basis of statement and medical report of Sukhmani wife of Ram Shankar and Jyoti daughter of Anil, who allegedly sustained wound on their heads. Learned counsel for appellant has shown the X-ray reports of Jyoti and Sukhmani dated 14.02.2020, which have been collectively filed as Anenxure-9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application, which reveals that there is an endorsement of "NAD" (i.e. Nothing Abnormal Detected). It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that X-ray reports of both the aforesaid victims clearly show that no case of attempting to commit culpable homicide under Section 308 IPC is made out against the present appellant. It is further submitted that in the FIR, 31 persons including one unknown person have been made accused and in the body of FIR, 10 -15 persons have additionally been mentioned, who were said to be involved in the crime. In this view of the matter, total about 45 persons have been said to be involved in the commission of alleged crime but it is very astonishing that no major injury has been caused to any of the victim/injured as mentioned in the FIR whereas all the accused persons were blamed to have used lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon in commission of the crime. It is further submitted that there is no criminal history of the present appellant and his antecedent is throughout good. It is submitted that the appellant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in forged and fictitious FIR for some ulterior motive. Appellant has been roped in present FIR due to political antipathy of the village and he had never indulged into such crime as alleged in the FIR. Appellant is in judicial custody since 05.05.2020. There are no chances of appellant's fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that innocence of appellant cannot be adjudicated at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence and there is likelihood of his involvement in other case. In case, he is released on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage, I find it an appropriate case to release appellant on bail.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and order dated 18.05.2020 passed in above mentioned case, is hereby set aside.
12. Let appellant, Chotu alias Ramgopal Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with following conditions:
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The appellant will abide the orders of Court, will attend the Court on each and every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
13. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by Court concerned and in case of breach of any of above conditions by applicant, the Court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.
Order Date : 09.11.2020 Manish Himwan