Allahabad High Court
Durgesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2020
Author: Umesh Kumar
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 257 of 2020 Appellant :- Durgesh Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Habaldar Singh Katheria Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Though, the name of Sri Habaldar Singh Katheria, Advocate, has been printed in the cause list from the side of opposite party no.2 but even on the revised call none has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.10.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3036 of 2019 (Durgesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 286 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rauza, District Shahjahanpur.
Since, the materials available on record, and also with the learned A.G.A., are sufficient to decide the appeal finally.
Prosecution case in brief is that FIR of the incident was lodged on 24.06.2019 by the complainant Lala Ram stating therein that accused Kamal Kishore Gupta has entered the house of complainant and caught hold the hands of his niece and regarding this a report was lodged against Kamal Kishore Gupta. The applicant's side were putting pressure upon the complainant to compromise the matter and further on 22.6.2019 broken the hand of his nephew. When the complainant denied to compromise the matter, the applicant's side threatened to kill him. Keeping in view the above enmity, on 24.06.2019 when the nephew of the complainant, Sonu (since deceased) was on the way at about 8.45 AM to go to Sarjee Beer shop, the accused persons, namely, Santosh Gupta, Ram Niwas son of Santosh, Dhirendra Tyagi, Durgesh Gupta, Indresh Gupta, Ramesh, Ram Niwas (present applicant), already gathered there, someone fired upon Sonu and consequently, Sonu expired.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the appellant-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is submitted that the incident occurred on 24.06.2019 at the shop of the applicant. In the scuffle one person, namely, Maya Prakash, died from the side of applicant and further one Sonu (since deceased) died from the side of complainant. The fact as to which side was the aggressor, cannot be decided, at this stage. It is further submitted that in the FIR lodged by Santosh Kumar (applicant's side), it has been mentioned that the complainant and his other family members came at the shop of the applicant and have started indiscriminate firing and thereupon went to his house and assaulted Maya Prakash with lathi and danda, which resulted in his death. In the scuffle one Ram Sukhi has also received injuries. There is cross case of the incident. Both the sides have received injuries. It is further submitted that from the side of applicant, one Santosh Kumar has lodged the FIR on 24.06.2019 at 9.58 AM showing the incident to have occurred at 8.30 AM in the morning, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 285 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, P.S. Rauza, District Shahjahanpur, against the complainant and others and further regarding the same incident, the complainant Lala Ram has also lodged the FIR on the same day at 10.01 AM, showing the incident to have occurred at 8.45 AM, which was registered as Case Crime No. 286 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC and 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rauza, District Shahjahanpur against the applicant and his other family members.
Further submission is that the general role of firing has been attributed to all the accused, whereas the deceased Sonu has received only one gunshot wound, it is to add that firing was made by the informant themselves, therefore, it can not be ascertained that whose fire hit the deceased. It is further submitted that in the FIR lodged by Santosh Kumar, the complainant and his family members have been granted bail. The appellant-applicant is languishing in jail since 26.06.2019.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant but he conceded that the incident occurred and two persons died each from the either side.
Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without touching the merits of the case in my opinion this appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and finally disposed of. The impugned order dated 18.10.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shahjahanpur is hereby set aside.
Let appellant-applicant, Durgesh Chandra Gupta, involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
1. The appellant-applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigating or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
2. In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant-applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
3. However, if due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Sub-ordinate Court is under pandemic/lockdown, the appellant-applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
4. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
5. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.
Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Prajapati