Atamaram vs State Of U.P.& Anr

1. Leave granted. The Appellant had reported to the Chauki-in- charge, Sheikpura Kadi, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, U.P. that on 13/14.3.2011 Respondent no.2, namely, Kunwar Singh and other co- accused had cut the ridge of his field on 12.3.2011 which resulted in an altercation between them at 7.00 a.m. on 13.3.2011. Five other persons, namely, Rafal Singh, Issam Singh, Shahspal, Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish and Pillu @ Ravindra were already present at the site; Kunwar Singh and Rafal Singh were armed with Balkati and the others with lathis. The six persons allegedly attacked the Appellant, his sons, namely, Sanjay and Baliram and his grandson Udaiveer all of whom suffered serious injuries. All of them stand charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302 I.P.C. Sanjay (deceased) suffered the following injuries:

6. In these circumstances, therefore, it was incorrect and imprudent for the High Court to grant bail at least till such time as the examination of the eye witnesses had been completed. The Court should not lose perspective of the fact that intimidation of witnesses is a common occurrence at least as regards persons who have come into conflict with the law on multiple occasions. Accordingly, the impugned Order is set aside and the bail of Respondent no.2 is cancelled. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. He shall be taken into custody forthwith.

7. The Appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Criminal Appeal No. 1679 of 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)No.7668 of 2012]

8. Leave granted. The Bail Orders dated 3.11.2011 passed by the High Court in favour of Rafal Singh, Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish have been assailed in this Appeal. Earlier, another Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur had rejected their applications vide Orders dated 14.10.2011. The alleged role ascribed to Rafal Singh is identical in material particulars to that of Kunwar Singh, both of whom allegedly were armed with Balkatis. As per the Affidavit dated 27.6.2013 filed on behalf of the State there are as many as fifteen cases pending against him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court erred in granting bail to the said Respondent as well. We set aside the Order of the High Court so far as Rafal Singh is concerned. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged, and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.

9. So far as Shashpal and Hanish @ Hanif @ Awanish are concerned, it appears that they were not armed with sharp edged weapons but with lathis/dandas. Of course, it is alleged, so far as Sanjay (deceased) is concerned, that he had also suffered from multiple lacerated wounds on the top of his head, for which prima facie Shashpal and Hanish are responsible. The State has not alleged pendency of any previous cases against them and it is also not the prosecution case that these two persons have endeavoured to intimidate or influence witnesses. For these reasons, so far as these two Respondents are concerned, the impugned Order is not interfered with. It is, however, made clear that if they are found to be intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with the evidence the bail granted to these respondents shall be liable to be cancelled. It is further made clear that the observations made hereinabove will not affect the Trial which should be conducted on its own merit.

10. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.