Allowed

Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021CRLA/3216/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and various sections of the IPC. The court set aside the earlier bail rejection order, emphasizing the generality of allegations and lack of incriminating evidence, while imposing strict attendance and trial cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial cooperation.

Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3216 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Saghir Ahmad(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dniesh Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final arguments.

¶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 for setting-aside the impugned order dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge/Virtual Court No.1, Allahabad in Bail Application No.2784 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.184 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 336, 427, 308, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bahariya, DistrictPrayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant, while drawing the attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by one Surendra Kumar on 16.07.2019 under section 147, 149, 323, 336, 452, 427, 379, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, submitted that there are as many as 29 accused persons who said to have barged into the house of the informant and started misbehaving with the lady folk, dismantle the under-constructed house and looted the raw material. In this transaction, as many as eight persons sustained injuries. The Court has an occasion to peruse the injury report of Surendra and Ram Kailash. They have received the maximum number of injuries. Surendra has received the injury over his skull and that might have caused to add Section 308 IPC in the array of sections. Fact remains that in the FIR, the allegations of assault have been levelled against all the 29 accused persons upon the injured persons levelling general and omnibus role of assault upon them and there is nothing extra-ordinary to single out the applicant for the allegation of section 308 IPC. Taking into account the generality of the allegations, and there is nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or pointing out from the appellant, he is liable to be released on bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 29.07.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail by making a mention that the appellant has got a criminal antecedent of three cases and the Court has occasion to peruse those three cases. It is clear that a day prior to the present FIR i.e on 15.07.2019, the Revenue Inspector also lodged the FIR as Case Crime No.183 of 2019 under sections 353, 427, 504, 506 IPC and section

¶9

3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj naming the appellant and three other persons.

¶10

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has got no information about this FIR. So far as case crime no.4 of 2019 is concerned, it relates to Section 3/5 of Prevention of Public Property Damages Act which is trivial offence. Thus, on this score, it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel that the appellant is not a previous convict and generality of allegation has been levelled against him. There is nothing on record to single out the appellant from the other co-accused persons.

¶11

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

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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.

¶13

Let the appellant- Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma , 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 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.

¶18

(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

¶19

AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated impugned order dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge/Virtual Court No.1, Allahabad in Bail Application No.2784 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.184 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 336, 427, 308, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bahariya, District-Prayagraj, is hereby set aside.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.9.2021 Sumit S

Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Vishwakarma 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

Naeem Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Shivam Pandey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Junaid Vs State of U.P. and Another