Allowed

Rajkumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLA/2768/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and released the appellant on bail. The court observed that no overt action was attributed to him beyond being a silent spectator and the son of a main accused, finding he made out a case for bail despite the serious nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, and the impugned order denying bail is set aside.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2768 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajkumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. sworn by Bhasker Verma, C.O., Obra, district-Sonbhadra today in the Court is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit. From the order sheet, it is clear that as per the report of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 10.08.2021, notices, pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, were duly served upon opposite party no.2 but neither he has engaged any counsel nor has filed any counter affidavit and opposite party no.2 has remained unrepresented. Since, State is prosecutor in the present case and they have filed counter affidavit as mentioned above, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit and wants to argue the case on merit. Hence, the present appeal.

¶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 filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra in Special Sessions Trial No.110 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no.78 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ghorawal, District-Sonbhadra.

¶8

Contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that this is ill-famed case of genocide which occurred about two years back in which 11 persons lost their life in indiscriminate firing by the co-villagers. The informant Lallu Singh lodged the present FIR on 17.07.2019 at Police station-Ghorawal, DistrictSonbhadra against as many as 28 named and 40-50 unknown persons for this act of genocide in which eleven persons said to have lost their life and many other found injured. The applicant is though named in the FIR at serial no.20 and he is the son of main accused Devdutt.

¶9

I have perused the statements of injured persons namely Dinesh Gaur, Chotey lal, Ramdhin Gaur, Ram Raksha Gaur etc who almost have given same picture that the applicant was though present over the site but remained silent spectator along with 30-40 persons under the jamun tree and no role has been attributed to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant-Lallu Singh, Basant Lal and others in which they have specified the role of assault by their fire arm upon five

¶10

persons namely Yagyadutt, Devdutt, Nidhidutt, Dharmendra and Neeraj and other co-villagers for assaulting upon the injured by their respective lathi and danda and other hard and blunt objects. After thrashing the statements of all the witnesses and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of other injured persons, it is clear that the role attributed to the appellant is that he was sympathizer and son of main accused Devdutt and he often indulged into litigation. Except this, there is no overt action has been attributed to the appellant in the commission of the offence. Moreover, out of 20 named and 40-50 unknown persons, number of named assailants were admitted on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on different occasions. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that the only role attributed to the appellant is that he was silent spectator, present over the site and the son of main assailant, the appellant deserves to be bailed out. The appellant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2019.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail by making a mention that the appellant was motivating force in commission of the offence He indulged in the litigation and other ministerial aspect of the issue in order to grab the property of other persons but fact remains that no specific role has been attributed to the appellant.

¶12

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

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode in which the appellant has been summoned and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Let the appellant- Rajkumar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE

¶19

COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶20

(v) 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra in Special Sessions Trial No.110 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no.78 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ghorawal, District-Sonbhadra, is hereby set aside.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.9.2021

¶24

Sumit S

¶25

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.08 11:05:54 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar 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

Chandan @ Ankit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Singhal @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khilendra @ Boby Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashish Kumar Kanojia Vs State Of U.P.

Mohammad Vakil Vs State of U.P. and Another