This single-judge bench allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act, setting aside the order rejecting bail. The court granted bail to the appellant, Murari, who was in jail since 2018, imposing strict conditions for trial attendance.
Appellant released on personal bond with two sureties; impugned order of Special Judge set aside.
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. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 985 of 2021 Appellant :- Murari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Araf Khan,Lihazur Rahman Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Verma,Siya Ram Verma
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Despite of the stop order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion on 15.07.2021 whereby learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has given solemn undertaking to the Court that he would file counter affidavit within two weeks positively but today, a mention has been made by Sri Deepak Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 seeking adjournment on his illness.
The Court has declined to accept his mention and propose to decide the case on merit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2018 and taking the help of these technicalities, a person is behind the bars for such a long period. This is unacceptable proposition and the Court is compelled to decide the case on merit.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in Crime no.02 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Jamunapar, DistrictMathura.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and one Meena are the accused persons in the present case. The FIR was got registered by father of the deceased on 01.01.2018 with certain allegations that son of the informant got married with one Meena after 15 years back. This wedlock has blessed with a son who is aged about 15 years. The allegation is that Meena developed certain amount of affinity with the present applicant and this action on the part of the Meena was objected by her husband Pappu(deceased). From the FIR, it is clear that it is suspected that both the accused persons have pressed the neck by the rope and killed the deceased Pappu. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the bail order of co-accused Meena whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to co-accused Meena in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28092 of 2020 passed on 07.12.2020, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the application. The appellant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2018.
Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for bail.
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite
appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and the reasoning adopted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in enlarging the co-accused Meena on bail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant- Murari , 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.
(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.
Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura in Crime no.02 of 2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Jamunapar, District-Mathurad, is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021/Sumit S
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant was eligible for bail despite the serious nature of the offence.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28092 of 2020Referred¶7
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Murari
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
