Allowed

Sachin @ Chinu v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CRLA/2276/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the High Court quashed the order rejecting bail for the appellant. Relying on the hostility of the injured witness and the parity principle with a co-accused, the court released the appellant on bail and directed the trial to conclude within one year.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; impugned order dated 06.08.2020 quashed. Conditions imposed regarding presence in court and trial timeline.

Sachin @ Chinu Vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2276 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Sachin @ Chinu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Onkar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

The office report shows that notice was served upon opposite party no. 2 wayback on 09.10.2020 but till date neither any counsel was engaged nor any counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. The notice is sufficient. It seems that the opposite party no. 2 is no more interested in contesting the present appeal. As a last resort, taking the help of the learned AGA the Court is proposing to decide the appeal on merits.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 06.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hapur in Case Crime No. 74 of 2020, u/s 307, 504 IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Babugarh, District Hapur.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by Smt. Mamta against three named and one unnamed persons including the appellant. It is further contended that the informant's husband was a road side vendor and on a very trivial and insignificant issue this incident was cropped up whereby all the three named accused persons have given a fire arm injury to the injured Ravindra Kumar. It is not clear that who is the author of the injury. The medical report indicates that one gun shot injury is on his abdomen whereas another gun shot injury is over his right thigh (non vital parts of the body). He further contended that there are three assailants and there is only one gun shot injury over the abdomen of the injured. It is further contended that during trial the injured in his testimony as P.W.-2 he has denial the allegation of causing fire arm injury upon the appellant. It has lastly been contended that the co-accused Sahil having similar role to that of appellant, was admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021, in Criminal Appeal No. 1854 of 2021, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶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 moreover the injured himself has turned hostile and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of

¶12

the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the appellant Sachin @ Chinu, 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶21

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. Hapur 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.

¶22

With the observation the present stands allowed and the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hapur is hereby quashed.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 Nisha

Sachin @ Chinu v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Chinu v. State of Up 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

Pradeep Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Up and Another

Onkar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Kumar Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Shahil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adnan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmveer Sahni Vs State of Up and Another