The Allahabad High Court has allowed the appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Lucknow in Bail Application under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Amit Bajpai.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution case the allegations so levelled by the informant are that allegedly on 25.03.2024 her husband (Baldev Singh) returned to his flat from Sector 16 after celebrating Holi with his family. Her husband parked his car and wished the appellant/accused (Amit Bajpai) ‘Happy Holi’. In reply the appellant, who was in a drunken state, started abusing. When her husband objected to the abusive language, the appellant attacked him with a knife.
It is further alleged that when the brother of the informant, namely Yash (the deceased), tried to save Baldev Singh, the appellant abused him with casteist slurs, threatened him with dire consequences and stabbed him multiple times on his chest and stomach.
It has been further alleged that the appellant also abused another resident of the same apartment, namely Arvind Kumar, when he tried to save Baldev and Yash.
Counsel for the appellant submits that it is significant to mention that approximately two hours prior to the registration of the FIR i.e Case under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), the appellant had lodged an FIR under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, at Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow, against the aforesaid persons, namely Arvind Kumar, Yash, and Baldev Singh Chauhan, bringing the true story to light, wherein he was attacked by the said persons.
He further submitted that the correct facts, which have been narrated by the appellant in FIR under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, at Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow are that at around 4:00 PM, when the appellant was returning to his apartment after parking his vehicle, Baldev Singh Chauhan and his brother-in-law Yash along with Arvind, attacked the appellant with rod and balli. The appellant suffered grave head injuries. All the three persons threatened to kill the appellant and they again attacked when the appellant ran towards the lift to save his life. The appellant was saved by the people of the society and he was admitted in Apex Trauma Centre where the medical examination of the appellant revealed that he sustained a fracture in his head.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party no 2 and 4 vehemently opposed the arguments as advanced by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant has committed a heinous offence and prima facie offence is made out against the appellant, as such, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The Court observed that,
The appellant has lodged an F.I.R just two hours before the F.I.R against the opposite parties, which itself indicates that it is a counter blast case; the opposite party no 3 Arvind Kumar is a police officer posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Line, Lucknow and he has been suspended by the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow for his key involvement in the incident; it is also clear from the CCTV footage that three persons are attacking and assaulting the appellant with rods and balli and the appellant in order to save himself from the sudden attack, used whatever he could find on him at the time, i.e. the small knife in his keychain to protect himself.
However, there was no intention or motive on the part of the appellant to murder any person and he acted only to save his own life; the appellant in the case was suddenly attacked with rods and balli by three persons which created a reasonable apprehension of death and grievous hurt in his mind, thus, his actions in defending himself were not disproportionate to the attack he was facing; the appellant suffered six grievous injuries during the assault by the opposite parties and medical examination of the appellant reveals multiple abrasion, conture swelling and stitched wound injury on the right side of the head; the statements of so-called eye-witnesses, namely Yaar Mohammad and Ratnakar Upadhyay, place the time of the alleged incident at 10:23 PM i.e a difference of about 6 hours from 04:30 PM, which is the time of the alleged incident as per the allegations levelled in the FIR by the informant herself and which is also what the prosecution story has been throughout and the said difference, coupled with the fact that the statements of Ratnakar Upadhyay and Yaar Mohammad are identical to one another and clearly tutored, render the same wholly unreliable; significantly around 14 residents of the society where the alleged incident took place, gave a written complaint to the Police Commissioner, Lucknow, highlighting the frequent and continued misbehaviour of Baldev Singh Chauhan and abuse of the position of police officer by Arvind Kumar.
“It has also been highlighted in the complaint that Baldev Singh Chauhan and Arvind Kumar brutally assaulted the appellant and also tried to take his life which also lends support to the fact that the appellant was not the instigator of the alleged incident; there is no evidence that would show mens rea on the part of the appellant, which is a necessary ingredient for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as such, even if the prosecution version is accepted uncontroverted, the case cannot travel beyond the ambit of Section 304 IPC and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Sukumaran (Supra), this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside”, the Court further observed while allowing the appeal.
Consequently, the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Lucknow in Bail Application under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow), whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected is hereby set aside and reversed by the high court.
The Court ordered that,
Let the appellant, Amit Bajpai be released on bail in the Case under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate Lucknow) with the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C:-
(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.
(b) 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, and
(c) 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) The appellant shall cooperate with the investigation /trial.
(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C is issued and the 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vii) The appellant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.