In an appeal against bail rejection, the court quashed the impugned orders, finding the lower court erred in refusing bail solely due to the victim's SC/ST status when case elements required. Bail was granted by a personal bond and sureties.
Bail granted to the appellant by a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 170 of 2021
Appellant :- Shyamu Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey,Manu Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhay Kumar,Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.12.2020 and 17.12.2020 of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj passed in Bail Application No. 959 of 2020 and 1163 of 2020 (Shyamu Rajbhar vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 400 of 2020, under section 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., section 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (Prevention and Atrocities ) Act, P.S. -Nichalaul, District - Maharajganj, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned orders have been challenged on the basis that the same is against law, as the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence given by the witnesses to the I.O. in correct perspective and merely because the case relates to victim of SC/ST community, the learned court below has rejected the bail application. Further submission is that the charge-sheet has already been filed. Further submission is that the kind of injury which has been shown to the victim, it appears not possible for him to recognize the assailant. On the basis of enmity the applicant has been falsely implicated, he was beaten some where else and further submission is that the learned court below did not appreciated the matter in the correct prospective, there is illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Further submission is that the appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayed and have submitted that as many as five injuries have been caused by sharp weapon on
head and that shows seriousness of the offence and learned court below at that stage did not find sufficient ground to give bail to the appellant- applicant.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, the case is covered under section 308 I.P.C., the maximum sentence which has been provided 7 years, moreover from the last more than about 7 months the applicant is in jail which is enough for an offence under section 308 I.P.C., there is no independent eyewitness in the case and the case is totally based on version of the injured himself who is eventually the informant in this case. If over all situation and circumstances is considered and it is also considered that in normal situation, in such cases, bail should be allowed and the learned court below should have granted bail to the applicant but instead of granting the bail to the applicant- apellant being influenced by the fact that the injured belongs to SC/ST community the bail application has been rejected, therefore, I find illegality and infirmity in the impugned rejection order which is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
In the result, appeal is allowed. Order dated 07.12.2020 and 17.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant Shyamu Rajbhar be released on Bail Application No. 959 of 2020 and 1163 of 2020 (Shyamu Rajbhar vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 400 of 2020, under section 323, 324, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., section 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (Prevention and Atrocities ) Act, P.S. -Nichalaul, District - Maharajganj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
Bhanu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of bail in a case under the SC/ST Act solely due to the victim's identity renders the order liable to be set aside.
Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail when the case is based on the version of a single injured informant without independent eyewitnesses.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shyamu Rajbhar
State
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
