Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8874 of 2023 Appellant :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Krishna Chaurasia Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Despite sufficient opportunity given to learned counsel for the informant, no counter affidavit has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant, 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

11.08.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banda has rejected the bail application no. 157 of 2023 of the appellant moved by him arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 of IPC, and under Section 3(2)

(5A) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaspura, District Banda. There is an allegation that appellant along-with co-accused came to the house of the informant and attack him as well his brother Raju with sharp edged weapon in which informant and Raju sustain grievous injuries. They were addressed with caste related words and were also threatened. It is submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In the F.I.R general role has been assigned to all the named three persons. Injured Raju, during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, attributed specific role of having knife in the hand of present appellant. It is also submitted that so far as injuries sustain by Phoolchandra and Raju are concerned they are found to be simple in nature. It is further submitted that statement of doctor is annexed in supplementary affidavit who has opined that injuries sustained by injured was not fatal to life. It is also submitted that there was dispute of money transaction between informant and appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that appellant is named in the F.I.R, the injured has stated that appellant was having knife with him at the time of occurrence but could not denied the fact that all the injuries found on the person of injured are opined to be simple in nature and as per the opinion of doctor they were not fatal to life. 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, Rajpal Singh 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 :- 8.11.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad