Allahabad High Court
Laukush Kumar Raidas And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 February, 2020
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4918 of 2019 Appellant :- Laukush Kumar Raidas And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Ghulam Murtuza,Maqsood Ahmad Beg,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Ram Bahadur,Ravi Jha Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for complainant which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Bahadur, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad, in Bail Application Nos. 3641 of 2019 and 3853 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 1502 of 2018, under Sections 304, 504 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad was rejected the bail application of the appellants by a common order.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the FIR was got registered on 14.12.2018 by father of the deceased after inordinate delay of 26 days, under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C. & SC/ST Act, against the appellants and two others named persons with the allegations that on 19.11.2018 in the night, the named accused persons including appellants had assaulted his son and using filthy language relating to the castes and postmortem report shows the deceased had sustained one fatal head injury i.e. right temporal bone which was fractured.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Suresh, who is driver of the Tata Pickup, is eye witness of the incident. All the four named accused persons including appellants has attributed the same role of 'marpeet' to the deceased. The statement of Suresh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he has repeated the version of FIR. It is next contended that the postmortem report shows the deceased had sustained one fatal head injury i.e. right temporal bone fractured. It is not clear that who is the author of fatal injury on the head of the deceased. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the co-accused Jakir who has assigned the same role as of the appellants, enlarged on bail by this Court vide its order dated 27.11.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 5411 of 2019. The appellants have no previous criminal history of the appellants. The appellants are languishing in jail since 21.6.2019.
Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant- Laukush Kumar Raidas and Umesh Kumar Gautam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) the appellants would fully cooperate in the conclusion of trial within one year and any tempering or willing tactics on the part of the applicants to delay the trial would warrant the automatic cancellation of bail.
(ii) the appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.
(iii) the appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under section 229-A IPC.
(iv) in case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., May be issued and if appellants fail 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 IPC.
(v) the appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellants are 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad arising out of case crime no. 1502 of 2018, under Sections 304, 504 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dhoomanganj, District- Allahabad, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Akbar