The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal against the refusal of bail, setting aside the Special Court's order and releasing the appellant on bail under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
Impugned order rejecting bail application set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7498 of 2022
Appellant :- Bantilal @ Pardeshi Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Shankar Mishra,Amlesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.
Notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 3996 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Bardah, district Azamgarh.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 22.07.2020 at 11.00 a.m. the informant's daughter Sanjana aged about 18 years went by bicycle to Bardah bank carrying her aadhar card, passbook and mobile no. 7235068924 to withdraw money. When she did not return, search was made for her. On one day, on informant's nephew mobile number 9212332327, his daughter Sanjana rang by mobile nos. 7217792271 and 9205805939 but on subsequent dates, she did not response on those numbers. During investigation, coaccused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati was arrested. On 17.08.2020 an unknown body of woman was found on minor canal Erna Gokul. The informant recognized the dead body as that of his daughter Sanjana through her kara and raksha. The co-accused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati confessed that he along with his maternal uncle appellant accused Banti Lal @ Pardeshi Prajapati and one co-accused Guddu have murdered informant's daughter with chappar and have burnt her face with acid so that she could not be identified and they threw her dead body from the bridge in the Surhan river. On the pointing out of co-accused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati the weapon of offence chapper was recovered
from the house of Banti Lal @ Pardeshi Prajapati which was locked and was opened by police.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been named on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati and on the basis of planted recovery of chappar. It is also submitted that in the FIR, the age of informant's daughter Sanjana is mentioned as 18 years whereas in the postmortem report of the dead body which was found on the river bank her age is mentioned as 35 years, thus the dead body is not the informant's daughter. It is also submitted that there is no DNA test to connect the dead body to that of informant's daughter. It is next submitted that similarly circumstanced co-accused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14203 of 2022. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that appellant has criminal history of three cases which has duly been explained in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal and in the supplementary affidavit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 17.04.2022 and, in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, complicity of the accused, statement of witnesses, post mortem report of dead body, recovery of chappar from the house of appellant, the period of detention undergone by the appellant, the fact that co-accused Goldi @ Sandeep Prajapati has already been enlarged on bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 28.09.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Bantilal @ Pardeshi Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.
It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
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/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Pratima
Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on bail after the rejection of his application.
Whether the disparity in age between the informant's daughter mentioned in the FIR and the postmortem report affects the bail application.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bantilal @ Pardeshi Prajapati
State of U.P.
Another
Surendra Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
