Allowed

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021CRLA/1570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Judge allowed the appeal against bail rejection, setting aside the impugned order. The court found the FIR delayed and injuries simple, noting the disputed intent to humiliate based on caste. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance, no adjournments, and police protection for the informant if threats ari

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1570 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Manoj Kumar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avanish Kumar Shukla,Mithilesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This appeal has been laid before me after being nominated by Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice by order dated 04.10.2021.

¶6

Heard Shri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been against the bail rejection order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.954 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar and another vs. State of U.P) arising out of Case Crime No.33 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Agra.

¶8

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final submissions.

¶9

Perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the F.I.R. was registered by Anil Kumar through an application u/s 156(3) CrPC on 22.01.2021 after inordinate delay of seven months for the incident said to have taken place on 23.4.2020. There is no justifiable explanation coming forward for this inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. has been lodged against five named and 7-8 unknown with the allegation that the contesting parties are the neighbour and without any rhyme and reason the appellants started hurling filthy abuses. When objected by the informant, all named accused persons assailed upon by the lathi, danda and iron rod and not only this, they have tried to misuse with the lady folks. I have perused the injury reports of both the injured, which reveals that they have sustained simple injuries. The Court has also occasion to peruse the statement of the victim Raj Kumari recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has attributed certain role of hurling filthy abuses to the

¶10

appellants and also indecently touching the gender of the lady.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand and another, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 and made emphasis upon paragraph 13 of the Judgement, which is as under :

¶12

"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 6 All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste."

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that taking the help of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), it is submitted that there was no intention on the part of appellants to degrade or humiliate the informant by giving filthy abuses.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by drawing the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C., but could not dispute the above facts.

¶15

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellants and also without expressing any opinion on merits of

¶17

the case, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶18

Let the appellants- Manoj Kumar and Mahesh , 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) THE APPELLANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANTS TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶20

(ii) THE APPELLANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶23

(v) THE APPELLANTS 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 APPELLANTS 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 PROCEED AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH

¶24

LAW.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶26

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 21.10.2021 M. Kumar

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kuamr Siddharth Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Jabir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Pratap @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.