Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2021CRLA/2903/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal against an order refusing bail in a charge of assault under the SC/ST Act. The court found the appellant made a fit case for bail, quashed the lower court order, and released him on personal bond and sureties. Specific conditions were imposed to prevent delay, ensure attendance, and protect the complainant from intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail; impugned order refusing bail is quashed; specific conditions imposed for trial conduct and complainant protection.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2903 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Arvind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijai Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijai Kumar Tiwari, 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 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 06.03.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly in Case No. 5852 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2019, u/s 147, 148, 364, 452, 323, 504, 307, 34 IPC and section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was got registered by opposite party no. 2 Gurubachan Singh against five named and one unknown person including the appellant attributing the general role of assault upon the informant as well as his wife Sonam. It is further contended that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. He next submitted that the co-accused persons namely Amar Singh, Randheer Singh, Mahipal, Rahul Katiyal and Hukum Katiyar have already admitted on bail on different occasions and the case of the present appellant stands on the similar footing to the case of the accused persons.

¶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,

¶11

prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶12

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and 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 appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the appellant Arvind, 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

¶17

IPC.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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 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. Bareilly 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 aforesaid observations, the present appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 06.03.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly is hereby quashed.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.9.2021 Nisha

¶24

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.08 15:09:43 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arvind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Sanjay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uday Pratap Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Tarun @ Pinta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veermati Vs State of Up and Another

Mumirul Islam @ Umar Vs State of Up and Another

Jalish Vs State of U.P.