Allahabad High Court
Tej Bahadur @ Chhota vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2020
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1185 of 2020 Appellant :- Tej Bahadur @ Chhota Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit, in Bail Application No. 222 of 2020 CNR No. UPPB-0100-0266-2020 (Tej Bahadur @ Chhota vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 670 of 2019, under Section 306 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that by perusal of F.I.R., no case is made out against the appellant under Section 306 IPC. It is further submitted that appellant and deceased was in love affair but due to refusal of marriage by parents of deceased, present incident took place for which he is not responsible. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2019 and he has no criminal history except the present case to his credit.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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 the impugned order dated 04.02.2020 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant- Tej Bahadur @ Chhota involved in in Case Crime No. 670 of 2019, under Section 306 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
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 :- 3.3.2020 Sartaj