Ved Prakash @ Thaunda v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8808 of 2023 Appellant :- Ved Prakash @ Thaunda Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rohit Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harshit Gupta Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, 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 08.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura in Bail Application No. 3415 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Vrindawan,District Mathura. As per prosecution version, on 02.05.2023 at around 5 pm, the brother of the informant namely Arjun has gone to Atala Chungi from E-rickshaw but he did not return back. Thereafter, on

04.07.2023 at around 4 pm, E-rickshaw was found parked near Rangji Ka Bagicha, Vrindawan. On the same day an unknown dead body was recovered from Akroor forest by the local police and the same was identified by the informant as his brother Arjun. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent, not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. During investigation the name of co-accused Karan Tomar was surfaced on the basis of C.C.T.V. footage and after his arrest, he disclosed before the police that appellant was also involved to commit the murder of Arjun. It is further submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant one wallet of the deceased alonwith Rs. 460/ and Aadhar card of the deceased were shown to be recovered, which is false and planted as there is no independent witness of the said recovery. It is further submitted that no motive has been assigned to the appellant. 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 09.07.2023 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. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by contending that co-accused Karan Tomar was identified through C.C.T.V. footage and in his confessional statement, he stated the involvement of the appellant in commission of crime. One wallet of the deceased alonwith Rs. 460/ and Aadhar card of the deceased were also shown to be recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. 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, Ved Prakash @ Thaunda 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 :- 17.10.2023 AKT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad