Sanjeev Kumar Soni @ Kaju Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2977 of 2023 Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Soni @ Kaju Soni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. Case is taken up in the revise call. Counter affidavit filed today in the Court by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record. As per the office report dated 29.11.2023 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No.2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Today when the case is taken up, there is no one present on behalf of opposite party No.2 neither any counter affidavit has been filed, as such, it appears that opposite party No.2 is not interested in contesting this case. Since the matter pertains to bail and learned counsel for the appellant presses urgency in the matter, therefore, this Court has no other option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal. Heard Mr. Indra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (ii) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1171/2023 (Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaju Soni vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2022 relating to Police Station-Ibrahimpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)

(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and village rivalry. No such incident, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. He further submits that as per the prosecution story there was some minor dispute in respect of tiffin sharing between the son of the appellant and another boy, namely-Aakash, who were student in the same school, namely-Y.L.S. Inter College, Mehboobganj, District-Ayodhya. The complainant is a teacher in the said school, who reported the said dispute to the Manager of the School and the dispute was settled in between the parties. Thereafter, 17.08.2022, when the complainant was returning home, the accused persons armed with lathi-danda surrounded him and started abusing him with caustic words and beaten him, mercilessly. He further submits that the complainant settled this dispute of marpeet with him with the indulgence of one local leader but when the complainant came to know that he can gain some financial aid from the State Exchequer by lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that as the place of incident was located on the border of District-Ambedkar Nagar and District-Ayodhya therefore, the police personnel were not registering the F.I.R. of the complainan citing the reasons best known to them. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that thereafter, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, and learned Magistrate without considering the fact that the matter pertains to a minor dispute between the parties and without considering the material evidence, directed the concerned police station to register the F.I.R. against the appellant, whereas, ingredients of Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)

(Dha) of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet without considering the nature of offence, in a most mechanical manner, which was challenged by the appellant before this Court by filing an Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6493 of 2023 (Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaju Soni vs. Sate of U.P. and Another), in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the order dated

11.07.2023 with the observation that the appellant will surrender within thirty days and also directed the court below to consider his bail plea in light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, but the court below without taking note of the observations of this Court has rejected the bail plea of the appellant, whereas, an interim bail was already granted by the court below to the appellant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 11.10.2023 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however, he is unable to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there was a minor dispute between the parties in respect of fight over tiffin sharing between the sons of the parties and there appears force in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the matter was settled by the indulgence of the Manager of the said School but due to inaction on the part of police and negligence on the part of Magistrate concerned, the matter has developed into a big issue; there also appears force in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. in question was lodged after a huge delay that too by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after taking legal advice from some legal expert; there also appears force in the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant that the present prosecution appears to be instituted against the appellant only with the intention to gain some financial aid from the State Exchequer and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1171/2023 (Sanjeev Kumar @ Kaju Soni vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.0265 of 2022 relating to Police Station-Ibrahimpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act is hereby set aside and reversed. Let the appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Soni @ Kaju Soni be released on bail in the Case Crime No.0265 of 2022 relating to Police Station-Ibrahimpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)

(Dha) of SC/ST Act with the following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter-33 of Cr.P.C.:-

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

(b) 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, and

(c) 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.

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Piyush/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench