The Allahabad High Court set aside the rejection of bail by the trial court in a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, finding the appellant had made out a prima facie case for release.
Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131406
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5500 of 2023 Appellant :- Vineet Alias Vikki Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in Bail Application No. 1191 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime N0. 95 of 2019, under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC and Sections 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Badapur, District Bijnore.
As per prosecution version informant Sompal Singh has lodged first information report alleging that on 21.04.2019 when his father Bulaki Singh alongwith Mahaveer and Firoji were returning from the market, some unknown persons slapped to Firoji and fired upon them as a result of which Bulaki Singh died on the spot and Mahavir and Firoji got seriously injured.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that co-accused Rohit from whom a revolver used in the crime is said to have been recovered, has already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4306 of 2019. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the
possession or on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that informant Sompal, injured Mahavir and Firoji were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3 respectively before the trial court and they did not corroborate the prosecution story as they did not identify the appellant. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para-28 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 03.08.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that on the basis of C.D.R. co-accused Rohit was arrested and name of appellant was disclosed by him. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant, namely, Vineet @ Vikki involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 4.7.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow bail when the trial court erred in rejecting an application by an accused in a SC/ST Act case.
Vineet Alias Vikki
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
