Allowed

Lallan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021CRLA/2843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court held that the appellants made out a case for bail despite the SC/ST Act charges, citing lack of antecedents and household nature of seized items. Bail was granted with strict conditions and safeguards for the witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Lallan Singh and Narendra @ Babban Singh were released on bail in Crime No. 238 of 2021 by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2843 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Lallan Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

As per the report of C.J.M., Sant Kabir Nagar dated 31.8.2021 indicates that notice was personally served upon opposite party no. 2 but till date neither any counsel was engaged nor any counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. With the help and aid of the learned A.G.A. 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 appellants are challenging authenticity and validity of the order dated 16.6.2021 whereby the bail application No. 473 of 2021 of the appellants was rejected by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case Crime No. 238 of 2021, u/s 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that there are as many as four accused persons named in the FIR lodged by Jaikaran, namely, Mudrika, Lallan Singh, Chandrika Singh and Babban Singh. The instant appeal is on behalf of Lallan Singh and Narendra @ Babban Singh. The contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that on the earlier occasion the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 24.8.2021 allowed the Crl. Appeal No. 2856 of 2021 (Chandrika Singh and anothers). It has lastly been submitted that the appellants are in jail since 31.5.2021 having no criminal antecedents to their credit.

¶9

I have perused the orders passed by the coordinate Courts and adopting the same reason, the applicants be served to be bailed out.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail by making submission that there are recovery of lathi and danda at the pointing out of the applicants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶11

In replica, Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant submits that lathi-danda is a house hold item in the rural area and it cannot be said with certainty that this is a weapon used in the commission of offence.

¶12

Moreover, there is a cross case and NCR was registered from the side of the applicants. There is no justification came forward explaining the injuries sustained by the injured persons from the applicant side.

¶13

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

¶14

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and the 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 fit case for bail.

¶15

Let the appellants Lallan Singh and Narendra @ Babban Singh, 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:-

¶16

(i) 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,

¶17

IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANTS MISUSES 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 FAILS 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.

¶20

(iv) 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 THE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

(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 APPLICANTS.

¶22

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 appellants would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellants who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and

¶23

pressurize the witnesses.

¶24

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

¶25

With the aforesaid observation, the present appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 16.6.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant Kabir Nagar is hereby quashed.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Ankita

Lallan Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vashu Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ritesh Sharma @ Mintu Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mazid Vs State of U.P

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ritik Mishra @ Shivam Vs State of U.P.