Allowed

Ratiram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021CRLA/1045/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the order rejecting an accused’s bail application under the SC/ST Act involving an IPC offence. The Court held that lower courts should have considered the discrepancy between medical reports stating blunt and sharp weapon injuries while the deceased and injured were allegedly drunk, suggesting accidental falls. Consequently, the Court allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Ratiram released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with trial and non-tampering with evidence.

Ratiram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1045 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Ratiram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Priyanka Devi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Notice was sent to respondent no.2 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned vide letter dated 19.5.2021 has submitted that the notice has been personally served on respondent no.2.

¶7

None has appeared from the side of the respondent no.2.

¶8

This appeal has been filed by appellant Ratiram against the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned Upper Session Judge (Court No.2)/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mahoba passed in Bail Application No. 21 of 2021 (Ratiram and another vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(2)(5 Ka)of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mahobkanth, DistrictMahoba by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is challenging the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 on the ground that the bail application of the appellant has been illegally rejected without considering the evidence on record. The FIR version is that while the deceased and the informant were returning by motorcycle on the way at Pulia of the village accused persons namely Ratiram, Kallu, Pannu and Nandan with axe and farsa stopped their motorcycle and used caste abusing language and committed maarpeet and snatched cash about Rs. 24,000/- and 20,000/- from each. Further submission is that subsequently after five days one of the injured Pappu died in the hospital and, therefore, Section 304 IPC was added during the investigation. It has been further submitted that from the perusal of the injuries report of the deceased Pappu, it appears that the injury was caused by blunt object and subsequently when Pappu died, in the postmortem the doctor has expressed his view that the injury was caused by sharp weapon, therefore, it has been submitted that there is anomaly in death report with regards to weapon used for the commission

¶10

of the offence. It has also been submitted that four persons have been named in the FIR and the injury which has been sustained by the deceased is only one which shows that anyone of the accused persons might have caused the injury and atleast three of them must not have caused any injuries. It is a question of fact which is to be decided during the trial by the learned court below. In the injury report when deceased was examined, doctor has pointed out that the smell of liquor was found and it shows that the deceased was in a drunken condition. The other injured persons is Shiv Narayan and only two injuries have been found caused to him and smell of alcohol was also present. Further submission is that it appears that both were in drunken position and this possibility cannot be ruled out that while coming on motorcycle in a drunken condition they might have fallen down and have sustained the said injuries. It has been next submitted that the learned court below did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and even though it was a case of single injury and four persons were implicated and bail application of the appellant was rejected. Therefore, it has been submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶11

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned court below after going through the record has correctly rejected the bail application for the reason that in the postmortem report the injury was found to have been caused by sharp weapon and moreover, the deceased belonged to schedule caste community. There is no illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the record.

¶13

It is clear that the deceased died out of one single injury and in view of the two medical reports it becomes suspicious that any injury was whether caused by sharp weapon and blunt object. Since the injured and deceased both were in a drunken stage, therefore, this possibility cannot be ruled out that while coming on motorcycle in a drunken stage they might have fallen and have sustained injuries.

¶14

In such circumstances and considering that the deceased had died allegedly by single injury, therefore, this fact should have been considered by the learned court below and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the bail application of the appellant should have been allowed. The learned court below

¶15

has committed apparent illegality in the impugned order, which is not sustainable under law. In such circumstances, I find apparently illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶16

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated08.02.2021 passed by learned Upper Session Judge (Court No.2)/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mahoba is set aside.

¶17

Let appellant-applicant Ratiram be released on bail in Bail Application No. Bail Application No. 21 of 2021 (Ratiram and another vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2020, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(2)(5 Ka)of SC/ST PA Act, P.S. Mahobkanth, District-Mahoba on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶19

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Mini

Ratiram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratiram 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

Shyamu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Ansari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Another