Allowed

Ankit Nain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021CRLA/4352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Court allowed bail to two appellants in a caste offence case involving culpable homicide. Relying on victim statements excluding appellants from firing, the court set aside a bail rejection order while imposing strict conditions regarding trial cooperation and absence warrants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order granting rejection of bail set aside; appellants released on bail with strict conditions including cooperation in trial within one year and safeguards for absentees.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4352 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Ankit Nain And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh Khokher,Gaurav Kakkar,Nitin Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akash Tyagi,Avnish Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Akash Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The order sheet clearly indicates that the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final submissions.

¶8

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 by the two appellants for setting-aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Crime No.194 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Daurala, District-Meerut.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the author of the present FIR is Sonu@Sohanveer who lodged the FIR against as many as nine named accused persons including the appellants. The time and date of incident is 29.04.2019 at 19:30 hours whereas the FIR was got registered on the same day at 22:37 hours with a prosecution story, that after easing themselves, the informant and some other persons were sitting over the culvert. All of sudden Rajan, Chintu, Ankit(applicant no.1) and Monu(applicant no.2), Sachin(Jafar), Jagan and few other persons carrying lathi, saria, country made pistol, have ambushed them and thereafter, an assault was made by their respective weapons and indiscriminately fired, causing injuries to Amandeep, Jitendra and Sachin. Jitendra has sustained three gun shot injuries. Amandeep has sustained two injuries, Sachin was given knife and saria blow over his head whereas Nitin was given assault by cricket bat.

¶10

On this, learned counsel for the appellants advanced his arguments (i) that though, the FIR is prompt one but no motive has been attributed in the entire FIR (ii) nor there is any allegation that on account of their caste, named accused persons have assaulted upon them. In the absence of these two major factors, involvement of the named accused perons becomes doubtful. The way and manner by which the prosecution story has been casted, seems to be quite unnatural. Few persons were sitting over the culvert and all of a sudden, bunch of assailants with their respective weapons, started assaulting without any rhyme or reason, seems to be cooked up story with a particular design.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants has shown the injury report of injured persons Amandeep, who has sustained four injuries over his person whereas Jitendra has sustained seven injuries and Sachin has received three injuries over his person. From the FIR, it is clear the applicant no.1 was also shown to be carrying pistol in his hand but Jitendra, Amandeep, Satyendra, Nitin and Nishu in their respective 161 Cr.P.C. statement, have candidly attributed the role of giving fire to Rajan and Chintu. Since, the injured persons themselves have excluded the role of assault in their respective 161 Cr.P.C. statement and have attributed the role upon Rajan and Chintu only, thus, it is argued that the appellants deserve to be bailed out. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are behind the bar since 03.05.2019. The charges were framed by learned trial Judge wayback on 18.03.2021 but no prosecution witness has yet been examined so far.

¶12

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the bail by making a mention that all the named accused persons in the furtherance of common object, have committed this offence. The appellant is shown to be carrying pistol in his hand and, therefore, his active involvement in the commission of the offence cannot be ruled out.

¶13

After considering the rival submissions that the injured themselves are attributing the role of firing upon Raju and Chintu excluding the role of appellants, thus, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only that the appellants probably falsely dragged into this offence, without any role to them.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellants-Ankit Nain and Monu@Mohit Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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:-

¶16

(i) THE APPELLANTS 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.

¶17

(ii) 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, 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

(iii) THE APPELLANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN

¶19

CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANTS MISUSE 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 FAIL 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.

¶21

(v) 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

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.

¶23

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused/appellant who belongs to a higher caste, after his release, may create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial and may extend allurement and threats to the informant, his family members as well as other witnesses, thus, it is directed that in such eventuality, all these complaints may be raised by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of complainant 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.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 11.06.2019 with regard to applicants namely Ankit Nain and Monu@Mohit Chaudhary passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Crime No.194 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Daurala, District-Meerut, is hereby set aside.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.10.2021 Sumit S

Ankit Nain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Nain 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

Jitendra Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Lal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kulshreshtha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumer Kaushik and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Priyanka Agrawal Vs State of U.P.