The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of one Aman Shukla and one Hariom, accused of assault and SC/ST Act offences.
A Single Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Aman Shukla and Another.
The criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants Aman Shukla and Hariom with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.7.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj and to release the appellants on bail in case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC and Section 3(1) (da) of SC/ST Act, PS Tirwa, District Kannauj.
The prosecution case is that on 16.5.2019 at 3.30 p.m while Lajjawati and Rajkumar, the parents of the informant/ injured alongwith informant were going to the field, the named accused persons prevented them on the way and hurled abuses and taking lathi of the father of the informant made assault upon them. They sustained serious injuries and were medically examined. FIR was lodged and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them.
It is also submitted that the prosecution case lacks evidence of any independent reliable witness.
It is further submitted that though three persons are said to be sustained injuries but the injuries received by them are simple in nature and even in the x-ray no adversity has been discovered. Appellants have no criminal history to their credit. Essential ingredients to establish offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case.
Counsel for the appellants said that no specific role of assault has been assigned to the appellants. Appellants are in jail since 25.6.2024.
He further said that 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 appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by the Court.
On the other hand, AGA opposing the prayer submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste community.
It is also submitted that ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against the appellants during investigation as a result of which charge sheet has been submitted against them. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that as per FIR no independent public witness was present at the time of the occurrence.
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, nature of injuries received by the injured persons, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. 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,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.
The Court ordered that,
Let the appellants Aman Shukla and Hariom involved in case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC and Section 3(1) (da) of SC/ST Act, PS Tirwa, District Kannauj 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) The appellants 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the Court.