Allahabad High Court
Beant Kumar Rajpoot @ Lala Rajpoot vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 April, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8661 of 2022 Appellant :- Beant Kumar Rajpoot @ Lala Rajpoot Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra,Anand Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
As per the office report dated 2.2.2023, notice has been duly served on respondent No.2 but none appeared on his behalf to press the appeal nor any counter affidavit has been filed.
Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No.1862 of 2022, in Case Crime No.223 of 2022, under Sections 307, 324, 329, 386, 504, 506 IPC & Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Chirgaon, District- Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution version, the informant Rama Chaturvedi, proprietor of petrol pump where the incident occurred lodged an FIR with police station concerned at 5.8.2022, at about 18:33 hours, wherein he stated that the accused Rohit Rajpoot, Lalla Rajpoot, Amit Ahirwar and one unknown person visited his petrol pump and demanded free petrol for their vehicle and when they refused to oblige them, they have threatened them. They again visited the petrol pump on the same day at 10:45 P.M. and demanded Rs.10,000/- per month as protection money and 10 litres free petrol. However, the staff again refused to oblige them, they became infuriated to this and on exhortation of accused persons, Rohit Rajpoot fired a shot on Ravindra Verma @ Golu and he suffered a gunshot wound on his thigh, 3cm above knee joint, comprising wound of entry and exit. He further submitted that the role of firing a shot has been assigned to Rohit Rajpoot specially and the present appellant has been assigned the role of exhortation to main accused. He next submitted that the accused appellant is in jail since 29.8.2022. He has committed no offence. He is resident of neighbouring village of the injured. There is no mentioned of CCTV footage of the scene, wherein appellant is shown to have fired shot over the injured. In FIR there is no allegation of any offence under SC/ST Act and the said section has been added on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded during investigation. Even, eye-witness Badam Singh has not assigned the role of firing to appellant. The injured Ravindra Verma has specifically stated that on exhortation of other accused persons, the accused Rohit Rajpoot fired a shot on him by his countrymade pistol, which hits his leg. He fell down after got injured. He lastly submitted that the learned court below has rejected the bail application of the appellant on insufficient grounds. The case of the appellant for the purpose of bail was not duly considered by learned court below.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submitted that the active participation of the accused appellant is disclosed from the FIR version as well as the statement of injured and eye-witness Badam Singh. However, he did not dispute the fact that the role of firing the shot is assigned to accused Rohit Rajpoot. In CCTV of the place of occurrence, presence of the appellant is shown.
Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, keeping in view the fact that the role of firing shot over the injured is assigned to co-accused Rohit Rajpoot and the appellant has been assigned with the role of exhortation only, hence, the the case of present appellant is distinguishable from the main co-accused but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 31.10.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant- Beant Kumar Rajpoot @ Lala Rajpoot be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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.
(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.
It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 5.4.2023 Kamarjahan