Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1715 (ALL)

Nagendra @ Heeraman v. State of U. P.

2019-07-17

RAJIV GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAJIV GUPTA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed U/s 14(A)(2) of S.C./S.T. Act against the order dated 17.05.2019, passed by Spl. Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, by which the bail application of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1811 of 2019, (Nagendra @ Heeraman vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2018, under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trives (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi, has been rejected vide order dated 17.05.2019. 3. In para 3 of the counter affidavit sworn by Shri Anil Kumar Rai, Circle Officer, Pindara, District Varanasi, it has been stated that the notice has been given to the complainant regarding pendency of the instant criminal appeal and photocopy of the said notice has been annexed as annexure-1 of the counter affidavit. It is thus evident that the notice regarding pendency of the criminal appeal has been duly served upon opposite party no. 2, however, despite service of notice, none responds for her. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the appellant along with co-accused Sarwan and Raju Patel had worked as a labourer for the first informant as daily wagers and when they demanded balance amount of Rs. 5,000/- due as wages then the informant started dilly-dallying and after some time refused to pay the same and in counter-blast to the said incident, the appellant and two other co-accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. Absolutely false and concocted allegation has been made against them, as they never abused the victim opposite party no. 2 or threatened her. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 17.05.2019 and was directed to be released on interim bail vide order dated 30.05.2019 and pursuant to the said order he was physically released on bail and during this period, he has not misused the liberty of bail. 5. 2 or threatened her. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 17.05.2019 and was directed to be released on interim bail vide order dated 30.05.2019 and pursuant to the said order he was physically released on bail and during this period, he has not misused the liberty of bail. 5. From perusal of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the allegations made in the FIR also there is absolutely no allegations that the appellant has committed present offence on account of fact that the victim belongs to scheduled castes. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact and the fact that the appellant has already been released on interim bail and has not misused the liberty of bail. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, I find that the court below has acted wrongly in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.05.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed. 9. Let the appellant Nagendra @ Heeraman be released on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2018, under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trives (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The 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 appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. 10. 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 appellant to prison.