Allowed

Tarun @ Pinta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLA/1667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J., allowed an appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging a bail refusal. The court noted mutual injuries in a cross-case where the deceased died days later due to sepsis, creating doubt about the aggressor. Bail was granted with strict conditions to conclude trial within a year.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties via conditions; impugned bail refusal order quashed.

Tarun @ Pinta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1667 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Tarun @ Pinta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Singh,Anand Pati Tiwari,Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj,Pramod Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ankit Saran

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 29.05.2020 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 860 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 295 of 2019, Special Session Trial No. 329 of 2020, u/s 302, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(2)5 of (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahr.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant are (i) There is a cross case whereby both the sides have sustained injuries and (ii) for the incident of 13.12.2019 the deceased Amrish took his last breath on 21.12.2019 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The Court has perused the post mortem report of Amrish which annexed as annexure no. 2 to the petition which indicates that the deceased has sustained a gunshot wounds over his left knee and left leg and fracture of both bones of the left side however the doctor has opined that cause of death is due to combined effect on intra cranial haemorrhage and sepsis consequent to left gangrenous leg. Taking into account that the cause of death is on account gangrenous and more particularly in this cross case the appellant too has sustained a severe injuries over his person and no plausible justification is coming forward to explain this injury. Under the circumstances, where both the parties has sustained injuries, it is impossible to decipher at this stage that who is aggressor.

¶9

Learned AGA and Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that it is the appellant who is the author of those fatal injuries. He was carrying the fire arm and has fired upon the deceased but he could not dispute the fact that those injuries has released over the non vital part of the body and on account of providence, the deceased has took his last breath during the treatment in the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.

¶10

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

¶11

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and submissions of the

¶12

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 Tarun @ Pinta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(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 PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(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 APPLICANT.

¶18

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C.

¶19

community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶20

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. Bulandshahr who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant 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.

¶21

With the observation the present stands allowed and the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST) (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr is hereby quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Nisha

Tarun @ Pinta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun @ Pinta 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

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarika Rai Vs State of U.P.

Israrul Haque Khan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.