Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10262 of 2022

Appellant :- Munnilal Sharma And 2 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- M.S. Chauhan,Shivkumari Chauhan

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, but no one has

put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this

appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite

party no.1 perused the material placed on record.

Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled

Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been

filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated

22.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ballia, has

rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case

Crime No. 275 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 308 IPC

and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, Police Station -

Sahatwar, District Ballia,

The applicants and four co-accused persons were implicated in this

case on the allegation of making attempt to commit culpable

homicide not amounting to murder besides offences of rioting,

beating and threatening.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the

injuries suffered by the injured have been found to be simple in

nature. No fracture was found on the body of any of the injured.

No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. They have

been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious

prosecution of appellants under the provisions of SC/ST Act. They

have no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail

since 21.10.2022. In case, the appellants are released on bail, he

will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the

Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail

to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very

serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the

contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released

on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse

the liberty of bail.

It appears that the court below has not properly considered the

facts of the case. Hence, in view of the above consideration the

order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated

22.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above,

finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of

trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of

accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right

to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above

their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case, court is of the opinion that the appellant

is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let appellants, Munnilal Sharma, Chandan Sharma and Krishna

Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on

their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in

the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to

the following conditions:

(i) 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.

(ii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

witnesses.

(iii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, 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 of

Cr.P.C.

(iv) The a