Rajjab v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7301 of 2023 Appellant :- Rajjab Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav,Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Supplementary 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. As per office report, notice has been served personally on informant/opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 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

14.06.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi has rejected the bail application No. 2513 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 35 of 2023, under Sections 147, 307, 308, 323, 504, 506 , 394 of IPC, and under Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R is that on 17.01.2023, when brother of the informant did not return after selling vegetables the informant went to locate him and found the appellant with named persons and three unnamed persons were beating his brother with iron rod and bricks. The appellant and other persons hurled abuses and addresses with caste related words and also looted Rs. 8000/- from his brother. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that informant in his additional statement had admitted that he had enmity with other persons Sahil, Sameer,Saifli and Shahrukh. It is further submitted that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to any of the accused. Nothing incriminating either on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant has been recovered. It is further submitted that after investigation Section 394 of I.P.C is deleted, therefore, the entire story of the prosecution becomes doubtful. Further, it is submitted that all injuries except injury nos. 2 and 3 noted on the person of injured were found to be simple in nature and in X-Ray also no bony injury was noted on any part of the body. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been submitted but name of unknown persons did not surfaced during investigation, therefore, it cannot be said that who is the author of the injury sustained by the injured. Appellant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2023 having no criminal history. 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 in the C.T. scan fracture of left zygomatic arch and scalp swelling left parietal region is found. 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 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, Rajjab 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 :- 19.10.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad