Allahabad High Court
Nebbulal Pandey @ Babau vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2020
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6828 of 2019 Appellant :- Nebbulal Pandey @ Babau Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA is taken on record.
As per report of CJM, Allahabad dated 9.1.2020, notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 15.10.2019 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad in IInd Bail Application No. 5494 of 2019 (Nebbulal Pandey @ Babau Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)r & 3(1)r of SC/ST Act, Police Station Karchhana, District- Prayagaraj.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that he was not named in the FIR and his name surfaced in the second statement of informant Arun Kumar Sharma. The statement of informant has been recorded after two months of the incident in which general role has been assigned to the appellant along with other co-accused. He further submitted that four other accused, namely, Gyan Chandra Yadav, Shobhnath Yadav, Jai Shankar Yadav @ Panditji and Badlu Alias Parmanand, who were also not named in the FIR, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.8.2019, 26.9.2019, 12.9.2019 & 3.2.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3929 of 2019, 4504 of 2019, 4781 of 2019 & 6703 of 2019 respectively. The appellant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2018 and he has no criminal history except the present case to his credit.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. From the evidence available on record, a prima-facie case is made out against the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants.
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 15.10.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellants are set-aside.
Let the appellant Nebbulal Pandey @ Babau involved in Case Crime No. 118 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)r & 3(1)r of SC/ST Act, Police Station Karchhana, District- Prayagaraj 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. It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before that court concerned as soon as it is issued.
This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-
1. The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
5. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
7. In case the appellant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Junaid