Allahabad High Court
Pintu Yadav vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 April, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26990 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1119 of 2024 Appellant :- Pintu Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the entire record.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Barabanki in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 599/2024:Pintu Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the complainant lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against the 14 accused persons including appellant and 30-35 unknown persons.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that only general role has been assigned to all the all the know and unknown accused persons for causing injuries without making any specific allegation against any accused person for causing any injury to any injured person, as alleged in the proseuction story and as per the medical examination report three police personnel sustained single injuries on their body, which falsify the prosecution story.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that similarly situated some of the accused, namely, Dhanraj Pratap Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Shubham Singh, Kulwant Singh and Aakash Nigam have already been granted bail by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 431/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki and the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by the trial Court.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Barabanki in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 599/2024:Pintu Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki deserves to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A.-I has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.
9. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that only general role has been assigned to all know and unknown accused persons for causing injuries without making any specific allegation against any accused person for causing any injury to any injured person, as alleged in the proseuction story and as per the medical examination report three police personnel sustained single injuries on their body, which falsify the prosecution story; and considering that similarly situated some of the accused, namely, Dhanraj Pratap Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Shubham Singh, Kulwant Singh and Aakash Nigam have already been granted bail by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 431/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki and the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by the trial Court; further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Barabanki in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 599/2024:Pintu Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki is hereby set aside and reversed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, namely, Pintu Yadav in F.I.R. No. 56/2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, he shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with the following condition:-
(i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii) That the accused-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 his from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and
(iii) That the accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
It is made clear that the observation made herein above are only confined to the disposal of the instant criminal appeal i.e. anticipatory bail application only and has no effect on the ultimate merit of the case.
Order Date :- 02.04.2024 Arvind