Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 16 April, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30184 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1130 of 2024 Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anubhav Awasthi,Anand Mishra,Arpit Dwivedi,Prashant Mishra,Varsha Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice upon respondent no. 2 is dispensed with.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 814 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 56 of 2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Dha), 3(1)(Da), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. - Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki.
4. Vide order dated 02.04.2024, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 1119 of 2024 filed by co-accused Pintu Yadav and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.04.2024 reads as under:
"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. "
5. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Pintu Yadav as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal history. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 814 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 56 of 2024, under Sections 188, 143, 504, 506, 186, 332, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Dha), 3(1)(Da), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. - Kotwali Nagar, District- Barabanki is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.
6. Let appellant, Yogendra Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) 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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
7. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Mohit Singh/-