Allowed

Durga Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLA/2262/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to appellants Durga Prasad and Subhash, setting aside the lower court's bail rejection order. The disposal was based on the presence of cross-cases, general attribution of roles, and injuries sustained by both sides in a distress case under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order dated 12.4.2021 set aside; appellants released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2262 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Durga Prasad And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narsingh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

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 filed on behalf of appellants Durga Prasad and Subhash challenging the authenticity and veracity of the bail rejection order dated 12.4.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Bail Application No.515 of 2021 (Durga Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime no.153 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Dha)(Da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chhawani, District-Basti.

¶7

Office report relying upon the report dated 19.7.2021 of C.J.M. Basti shows that the notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally. Despite notice was served upon opposite party no.2, neither she has engaged any counsel nor has filed any counter affidavit so far. On 16.8.2021 the Court has directed the learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit but learned A.G.A. too has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶8

In the absence of any counter version from the opposite side, the Court is constrained to decide the appeal on merits after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that one Kamla Devi has lodged the F.I.R. belatedly on 24.6.2019 for the incident said to have taken place on 16.6.2019 after attributing a general role of assault upon Jagnande, Ram Lochan, Kamla and Sarita by seven named accused persons including the appellants by lathi, danda, kicks and fists. It has been contended that there is no plausible justification coming forward for this inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The injured Kamla has refused to get her medical examination done. I have perused the injury report of Jagnande which indicates that he has sustained injuries over his head and left knee. I have also perused the 161 statement of Dr. Asim Faruqui, who

¶10

treated the injured. From the statement of doctor it is clear that the injured was having one stitched wound over his head and swelling over his left knee, but there was no fracture as such.

¶11

It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that there is cross case and the appellants have also lodged N.C.R. NO.65/2019 against the alleged injured persons and on 17.8.2019 a direction was issued by the concerned Magistrate to investigate into the matter u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted that the appellant Durga Prasad has also sustained grievous injuries over his head. The appellants are languishing in jail since 12.4.2021.

¶12

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

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

¶14

Taking into account the entirety of circumstances, both the parties have sustained injuries, a general role has been attributed to all the assailants, the Court understands that it is difficult to decipher at this stage that which group is aggressor over whom and moreover 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 appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶15

Let the appellants- Durga Prasad and Subhash , 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 LAW.

¶22

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

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 12.4.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, is hereby set aside.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 M. Kumar

¶25

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.08 17:52:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durga Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mudhir Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Samsher and Others Vs State of Up

Pankaj Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others