Allahabad High Court
Pratap Narayan @ Pratap Katiyar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 November, 2020
Author: Umesh Kumar
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6657 of 2019 Appellant :- Pratap Narayan @ Pratap Katiyar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh,Sunil Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Mishra,Shailendra Kumar Ojha,Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.9.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Kanpur Dehat.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copies of lower Court bail record) and the documents (instruction and case diary) available with the learned AGA are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.2 as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to rivalry. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Submission of learned counsel for the the appellant is that the appellant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; the P.W.-1, Indrapal, in his statement has not assigned any role to the appellant; he has no concern with the alleged place of occurrence; there is major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is next contended that the co-accused Kailash Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 12.6.2020 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2020 (Kailash Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another). The appellant is in jail since 11.9.2019 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 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.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. Specific role has been assigned to the appellant. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
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.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. 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.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and finally disposed of, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let appellant Pratap Narayan @ Pratap Katiyar involved in Case Crime No.368 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34, 201 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S- Rura, District- Kanpur Dehat (Ramabai Nagar), be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions;
1. The applicant-appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
2. In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
3. However, keeping Covid-19/ Lock down, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
4. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
5. 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.
It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.
Needless to note that observation, if any, has come in this order, that is only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and learned Trial Judge will not be influenced in any manner while deciding the trial.
Order Date :- 17.11.2020 S.Verma