Allahabad High Court
Sangram Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 10 January, 2020
Author: Anant Kumar
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2007 of 2019 Appellant :- Sangram Singh & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Pawan Kumar Singh Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
In spite of sufficient time given to learned counsel for the complainant but no counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 21.09.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad, in Bail Application No.284 of 2019 (Sangram Singh and another Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.241 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (Va) & 2 (2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Mawai, District Faizabad. Further a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant/applicants on bail in the said case crime.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is that F.I.R. in this case has been lodged by the complainant Jag Prasad against the nine named persons and one unknown person stating that on 11.8.2019 at about 01.10 p.m. when the complainant was returning from market along with his father Sunder Lal Kori and one Parmeshwar Lodh, when they reached near Bhawanipur turn near the pond, the named accused persons, due to previous enmity came with white colour Safari Car No.UP-32 EF 0981 and white colour Wagan-R No.UP-32 DM-5129 with an intention to kill by opening fire to Sunder Lal Kori and Parmeshwar along with complainant, due to which, Sunder Lal Kori and Parmeshwar sustained fire arm. Anyhow, the complainant and Parmeshwar jumped in the pond and save their life. When the co-villagers came there, the accused persons brandishing their fire arms and ran away. Father of the complainant has been taken to the district hospital, Ayodhya, from there, father of the complainant referred to Trauma Centre, Lucknow, where his treatment is going on.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that this occurrence was taken place by some unknown persons on 11.8.2019 itself. The In-charge Police Station Mawai, District Ayodhya has visited the scene of occurrence and recovered four empty cartridge .315 bore. It was mentioned in that some unknown persons have opened fire with their illegal arms and in said recovery memo, the present of Jag Prasad was also shown. It is mainly argued that this occurrence has taken place by some unknown persons and due to previous enmity, the appellant has roped in, who belongs to the same family.
Opposing the prayer for bail, learned counsel for the private respondent has stated that in this case, statement of injured Parmeshwar and Sunder Lal Kori have been recorded wherein they have supported the prosecution version and they have named the accused persons and have assigned the role of firing to all of them. As per injury report of Parmeshwar Lodh, he was having two lacerated wounds, one was 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left forearm and other was lacerated wound of 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left forearm and the other injured Ram Sunder was having gunshot injury in abdomen and right elbow but the dimension of this injury is not available on record. On this score, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the accused persons are named accused and they have made indiscriminate firing and their bail applications are liable to be dismissed.
In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that from perusal of recovery memo, it is evident that only four empty cartridges were recovered, which shows that fur shots were fired by some unknown persons and later, due to previous enmity, the appellant has been named in the present case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the recovery memo as referred, to my view, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant/applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused-applicant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad, is set aside.
Let appellants/applicants (Sangram Singh and Uttam Singh) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellants/applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The appellants/applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellants/applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellants/applicants 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.1.2020 sks