Vikas @ Ramchelu v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7084 of 2023 Appellant :- Vikas @ Ramchelu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated

01.08.2022 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing the first bail application no. 3300 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C and impugned order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur has rejected the second bail application No. 881 of 2023 under Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, arising out of case crime no. 169 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC, and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R is that son of the informant namely Hariom Bharti left his house on 04.07.2022 at around 3:30 p.m but he did not returned. On 05.07.2022, information is received that some unknown person has committed his murder and his body is lying in guava garden. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that informant is the witness of the inquest. It is further submitted that in postmortem report five injuries were noted on the person of the deceased. Further, it is submitted that information of dead body was given by one Manoj and this information got recorded in general diary of the police station concerned. It is further submitted so far as witness Manoj and Sonu are concerned that they watched the deceased in company of the appellant and other persons before his death, these witnesses belongs to another village and they are having criminal history to their credits. It is further submitted that recovery of a gamcha is made on the pointing out of co-accused and no recovery was made on the pointing of the present appellant. Appellant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2022 and criminal history of the appellant is explained in paragraph-5 of the rejoinder affidavit. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that there is last seen evidence against the appellant and further it is submitted that co-accused and appellant had some dispute with the informant's son and in continuation of it he was killed by the appellant and other accused. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the impugned order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Let appellant, Vikas @ Ramchelu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) 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.

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is 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. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad