Heeralal v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9257 of 2023 Appellant :- Heeralal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vimlesh Kumar,Sarthak Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. List revised. Sri Vijay Kumar, Learned A.G.A. submits that notice upon the informant/opposite party has been duly served but no one appears on his behalf. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSOAct), First, District Hathras in Bail Application No. 1184 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 354 of 2023, under Sections 307, 506 IPC r/w Sections 3 (2)

(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikandrarao, District Hathras. As per prosecution version, first information report has been lodged against one Garvit who happens the son of the appellant stating that on 21.06.2023 at around 7 pm, Garvit enticed away the daughter of the informant. When her daughter did not return on

21.06.2023, he searched her but she could not be traced out. On

22.06.2023 at around 4 am in the morning, he got information that her daughter was lying near the shop of Garvit having injuries over her body. It was also apprehended that Garvit has committed the aforesaid incident. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case being the father of named accused Garvit. The witness of prosecution during their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. assigned the role to the appellant that he pushed the victim as a result of which she sustained injuries. It is further submitted that as per the medical report of the victim/injured, she sustained five injures. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature except the injury no.5. The injury no.5 was found on her right leg, thigh and hip joint which is not on the vital part. Therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellant. It is further submitted that victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. made allegations against co-accused Garvit. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Let the appellant, namely, Heeralal involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.10.2023 AKT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad