Allowed

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020CRLA/5333/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, lifting a prior bail rejection order. The appellant, a Gram Panchayat member, was accused of offences includingSections 147, 504, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act provisions regarding a retaliatory complaint. The Court released the appellant on bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of attendance and no adjournment requests.

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5333 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Babu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Raj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') the appellant is challenging the order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act Chitrakoot in Bail Application No. 545 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.1146 of 2017 (Special Session Trial No.16 of 2019), under Sections 147, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot, whereby bail application of the appellant was rejected.

¶8

It is Contended by learned counsel for the appellant the the appellant is Gram Panchayat Member and has raised voice against the Chitani Pradhan, who was making embezzlement of the Government's money in the interlocking work of bricks and at their behest, his accounts were seized and disciplinary action were also initiated against him. Infuriated by this action, on the part of the appellant, as a retaliatory measure, present complaint has been lodged against the appellant, who has been falsely implicated in the case. However, the police after investigation has submitted the charge sheet under Sections 147, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in jail since 28.6.2019. Criminal history of the appellant has already been explained by learned counsel for the appellant in para 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant,

¶11

prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the appellant, Rambabu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case 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:-

¶14

(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶15

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEM ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEM 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 174-A IPC.

¶17

(iv) 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

¶18

PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPELLANT.

¶20

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶21

Accordingly the appeal succeeds and is allowed , the impugned order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act Chitrakoot is, hereby, set aside.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 T. Sinha

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atul Vs State of U.P.

Faijal Khan Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shilendra Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.