Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021CRLA/1873/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed four criminal appeals filed by appellants seeking to set aside the rejection of their bail applications. The High Court held that the Special Judge correctly rejected bail due to the magnitude of the offense involving severe injuries to police personnel and lawlessness.

What did the court decide?

All four criminal appeals are dismissed; bail applications are rejected.

Gyan Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1873 of 2021 Appellant :- Gyan Singh @ Pappu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1888 of 2021 Appellant :- Patiram Respondent :- The State Of Up And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1874 of 2021 Appellant :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1889 of 2021 Appellant :- Mahendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶5

As per report of the C.J.M. concerned, notice to respondent no. 2 has been personally served, but none is present on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶6

These aforementioned four criminal appeals have been filed against the common impugned order, hence, they are heard together and have been decided by a common order.

¶7

These criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants Gyan Singh @ Pappu, Patiram, Anil Kumar and Mahendra with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 18.12.2020, passed by Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, Court No. 02, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3096 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353, 395, 397, 504, 506, 333 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the aforementioned criminal appeals have been filed. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that bail application was rejected by the court below without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. There is contradiction in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. In the rejoinder affidavit so filed in Criminal Appeal No. 1888 of 2021, it has been alleged that the appellants are labour and they have no concerned with the alleged offence.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed and has submitted that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application was rejected by the learned court below and there is no illegality. On the contrary, 40-50 persons with lathi, danda, kata and ballam in their hands in the garb of protesting against the electricity cut started committing lawlessness and in the course of their activities, they injured as many as five police personnel and one of them who was related to SC category has sustained grievous injuries and got his hand fractured. Therefore, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the appeals have got no force and are liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record. The first information report version is that on the date of occurrence, the S.H.O. who is the informant in the case lodged the first information report to the effect that when he and other constables came to the police station 40-50 persons were gathered there on the road in front of police station and they were crying and making noise. The police personnel tried to talk with them but protesting against the electricity cut, they started assaulting the police. The protest was lodged by one Mahendra Rathaur, who was Ex-Pradhan of the village. With them, police were also seen. Other 45-50 persons whose names were also not mentioned, they were also protesting. The police party tried to make them to understand that they should

¶11

peacefully talk but they started abusing the police personnel and with intention to kill them assaulted on them by lathi, danda and other weapons and they also snatched away mobile of the informant and they tried to snatch away the guns of the police personnel. Because of this lawlessness, the people passing through, became very apprehensive and started running here and there. When the police personnel by using necessary force in their private defence tried to catch them, they ran away abusing and threatening to set fire on the police station.

¶12

It appears that all the appellants who have preferred these appeals, they are named in the first information report and it goes to show that they were identified by the police personnel. It is pertinent to mention that five of the police personnel has sustained injuries and that shows the magnitude of the offence. S.H.O. Govind Singh has sustained five injuries, out of which two were lacerated wound, two were traumatic swelling and one was multiple abrasion. Constable Sunil Kumar has sustained three abrasion, Constable Suraj Chahal has sustained traumatic swelling, Constable Harsh Berwal has sustained two traumatic swelling and constable Neeraj has also sustained one traumatic swelling. Thus, it appears that five police personnel have sustained injuries and as stated by the injured witnesses, these injuries were caused by protester including the appellants.

¶13

It appears to be a case of extreme culpability, where not only the police personnel were prevented from discharging their public duties but the appellants crossed all the limits and injured five police personnel. In the course of those incident, they went to the extent of using abusive language with caste relating words against the police personnel who belonging to SC community. Although peaceful protest in order to press the genuine grievance and demand is permitted but taking law in hands and going to the extent of causing injuries to five police personnel is not at all permissible as because of this kind of act a chaos was created and there become complete lawlessness on the spot. The appellants were identified and subsequently when they were arrested, they made confessional statements before the police.

¶14

In view of the above, I find that considering the magnitude of the offence, the Special Judge SC/ST Act considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and thereafter found that the case for bail was not made out and, therefore, the bail application of the aforesaid four appellants was rejected by the single order.

¶15

Hence, I do not find any illegality and, therefore, the aforementioned four criminal appeals have got no force and are

¶16

liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Accordingly, the aforementioned all the four criminal appeals are dismissed at this stage and the bail applications of the appellants are also hereby rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 sailesh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Singh @ Pappu 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

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

Ratiram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

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