Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1555 (ALL)

Shailesh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2024-06-14

SAMIT GOPAL

body2024
JUDGMENT Samit Gopal, J. List revised. 2. Heard Sri. Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Vikas Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri. Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(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 bail rejection order 13.03.2024 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Deoria in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 302, 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) 5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Madanpur, District Deoria. 4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 13.1.2023 at about 3.30 p.m. the motorcycle of Ketak, son of the informant, hit Ugrasen Yadav but the matter was pacified, however, after sometime the named accused persons carrying lathi, danda with them and abusing the informant by his caste name, as he belongs to SC/ST community, started beating Ketan Prasad and Lalita Devi, wife of the informant, with intention to kill and the motorcycle was also damaged. The injured were taken to the hospital and the son of the informant sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 against six named accused persons including the present appellant under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, however, subsequently the injured died and the matter was converted under Section 302 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that general & omnibus allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. It is submitted that co-accused Ramhans Yadav, Gujesar Yadav and Rampravesh have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.05.2023, 08.12.2023 and 07.03.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3874 of 2023, 10978 of 2023 and 681 of 2024, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-12 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that co-accused Shreeram Yadav has also been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3669 of 2024 (Shreeram Yadav v. State of U.P. and another), the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is submitted that the present case is a case of parity. It is submitted that the present case is a case of parity. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of the appeal and he is in jail since 17.01.2024. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for setting aside the impugned order but could not dispute the fact that identically placed co-accused have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. 7. Perused the records and the orders of the co-accused. The order of co-accused Shreeram Yadav dated 24.05.2024 reads as under:- "1. This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) 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 13.3.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 13.1.2023 at about 3.30 p.m. the motorcycle of Ketak, son of the informant, hit Ugrasen Yadav but the matter was pacified, however, after sometime the named accused persons carrying lathi danda with them and abusing the informant by his caste name, as he belongs to SC/ST community, started beating Ketan Prasad and Lalita Devi, wife of the informant, with intention to kill and the motorcycle was also damaged. The injured were taken to the hospital and the son of the informant sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.1.2023 against six named accused persons including the present appellant under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, however, subsequently the injured died and the matter was converted under Section 302 IPC. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the accused persons of this case, particularly the present appellant have been falsely implicated in this case in a planned way. It was a simple case of road accident wherein the deceased / son of the informant sustained serious injuries resulting into his subsequent death but it was given a shape of murder. It is also submitted that the accused persons of this case, particularly the present appellant have been falsely implicated in this case in a planned way. It was a simple case of road accident wherein the deceased / son of the informant sustained serious injuries resulting into his subsequent death but it was given a shape of murder. It is also submitted that when the deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured condition the doctor in the medical report mentioned the case as 'RTA' i.e. road traffic accident case. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently which hit Ugrasen Yadav who sustained serious injuries, but however, in the said accident the son of the informant 'Ketan' also sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he died of the said injuries. It is further submitted that Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of Ugrasen Yadav, lodged one F.I.R. of the incident under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC on 16.1.2023 as case crime no. 04 of 2023 against Ketan, the deceased of the case, and that is why when Ketan was taken to the hospital it was found a road traffic accident case. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case after motorcycle accident the named accused persons came to the area where the informant was residing and the incident occurred in that area whereas the said Ketan has already sustained injuries prior to the alleged incident, as mentioned above, in the motorcycle accident and then there was no occasion for the accused persons of this case to go to the area of the informant and to make an assault there upon Ketan. It is also submitted that even from the subsequent statement of the informant made before the I.O. the prosecution case remains under the shadow of doubt. In his subsequent statement the informant failed to show the actual place of occurrence to the I.O., as recorded by the I.O. himself in the case diary. It is also submitted that independent villagers have also not supported the prosecution case in their statements under Section 161 CrPC and this fact strengthens from their statements as well that it was a case of road accident only. It is also submitted that independent villagers have also not supported the prosecution case in their statements under Section 161 CrPC and this fact strengthens from their statements as well that it was a case of road accident only. It is further submitted that the I.O. has also collected evidence to this effect that Gujesar Yadav, the father of the present appellant, was suffering from paralysis and philariasis and he was unable to be even move but he has also been named in the F.I.R. as one of the assailants. It is further submitted that the named co-accused Ram Hans Yadav having similar role has already been granted bail and his criminal appeal No. 3874 of 2023 has been allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.5.2023. It is further submitted that the present appellant is in jail since 17.1.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The deceased was bitterly assaulted by the present appellant and other named accused persons after the motorcycle accident and the injuries sustained by him in that assault was the cause of his death. It is further submitted that the death of the deceased was not a result of any road accident. It is also submitted that in the initial medical papers of the deceased the doctor has noted it as a case of assault. It is also submitted that Smt. Lalti @ Lalita Devi, the mother of the deceased, is the eye witness of the occurrence. She has elaborated the whole story in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and a specific role of assault by lathi has been assigned to the present appellant and the assault was made with intention to kill. It is also submitted that Smt. Lalti @ Lalita Devi, the mother of the deceased, is the eye witness of the occurrence. She has elaborated the whole story in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and a specific role of assault by lathi has been assigned to the present appellant and the assault was made with intention to kill. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said specific role of the present appellant, he is not entitled to claim parity of co-accused. It is also submitted that it is a case of blind murder of a person belonging to the marginal section of the society and also of SC/ST community. Several injuries have been found over the body of the deceased. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant, the fact that co-accused has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is setaside. 9. Let the appellant Shreeram Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 03 of 2023, under Sections 302, 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Madanpur, District Deoria 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). 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court." 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and the fact that four co-accused persons have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court and the present case is a case of parity, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Let the appellant- Shailesh Yadav, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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. (iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses 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 174A I.P.C. (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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant. 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. 11. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Deoria is hereby set aside.