Allahabad High Court
Rohit Raghuvanshi Alias Dadda Thakur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2022
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 312 of 2022 Appellant :- Rohit Raghuvanshi Alias Dadda Thakur Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendu Singh,Pooja Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rateesh Singh Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Office report dated 25th of May, 2022 indicates that notice issued to opposite party No. 2-Suraj Kumar Bhartiya (informant) has been served personally and Shri Rateesh Singh, learned Advocate has filed Parcha No. 4/22 on his behalf.
Today when the matter is taken up in the revised call, no one is present on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to press this appeal.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final hearing.
Taking the help from the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Court is proposing to decide the present Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
Heard Ms. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-respondent.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2021, passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad arising out of Case Crime No. 991 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, police station Colonelganj, district Prayagraj, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
The emanation of facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the informant, Suraj Kumar Bhartiya has lodged the first information report on 30.12.2020 at about 21.39 hours against the seven named accused persons including the appellant and dozen more for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, attributing the general and omnibus role of assault by all of them.
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that there is cross version of the present F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 990 of 2020 registered at police station Colonelganj, district Prayagraj allegedly lodged by Raghvendra Pratap Singh on 30.12.2020 at about 20.11 hours against Surajbhan Singh, Ashish Yadav @ Sani, Ankit Pal, Ritik Pal, Suraj Yadav and three unknown persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504 and 307 IPC, copy of the same has been annexed as annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the date and time of the incident is same. Moreover, it is further contended that co-accused, namely, Raghvendra Singh @ Raghvendra Pratap Singh and Suraj Singh @ Surya have already approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 837 of 2021, in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.3.2021 allowed the appeal of the co-accused persons and set aside the order dated 1.2.2021 passed by the court below and the aforesaid co-accused were admitted on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the impugned order of the court below is illegal and perverse. The court below has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective. It is next contended that no prima facie case is made out against the appellant. FIR was lodged against the appellant in the matter on the basis of false facts. It is next contended that trial court while rejecting the bail application has committed illegality. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 8.12.2021.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the case of the present applicant stands on exact footing with aforesaid co-accused, namely, Raghvendra Singh @ Raghvendra Pratap Singh and Suraj Singh @ Surya, who have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and on the principle of parity, the appellant also deserves similar protection. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is cross case, in which both sides have received injuries.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer of bail, but conceded on the point that aforesaid co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and nature and gravity of offence, scrutinizing the evidence available on record and also considering the fact that aforesaid co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, the Court is of the opinion that appeal has substance and is liable to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Rohit Raghuvanshi @ Dadda Thakur be released on bail arising out of Case Crime No. 991 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, police station Colonelganj, district Prayagraj, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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 :- 3.6.2022 Sumaira