The High Court rejected the criminal appeal filed by Rajan Chaudhary challenging the bail rejection order. Upholding the trial court's decision, the court cited the appellant's active role in an assault involving firearm injuries, criminal antecedents, and the relevant Supreme Court precedent regarding unlawful assemblies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5645 of 2019
Appellant :- Rajan Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Suphal Shukla,Gaurav Kakkar,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akash Tyagi,Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
(1) Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Akash Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State, perused the material on record.
(2) Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the appeal is ripe for final submissions on merit.
(3) The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 2015 is targeted against the bail rejection order dated 22.06.2019 by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Merut, who have rejected the Bail Application No. 2551 of 2019 on behalf of appellant Rajan Chaudhary arising out of case crime no. 194 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut and is behind the bars since 03.05.2019.
(4) The prosecution story starts flowing after the lodging of the prompt FIR by one Sonu @ Sohanvir on 29.04.2019, at 22.37 hours for the incident said to have been taken place at 19.30 hours on the same day under Sections, 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC against seven named and two unnamed persons. The story narrated in the FIR, is that on the fateful day, the informant after attending the call of nature, were sitting over the culvert, and some others were coming from their agricultural field, all of a sudden all named accused persons including the appellant Rajan Chaudhay, were armed with deadly weapons viz Lathi, Saria, Pistol country made Pistol have reached over the spot and started assaulting with their respective weapons. Rajan, Ankit, Chintoo & Jafar who were carrying pistols/countrymade pistols, indiscriminately pumped firing, causing serious gunshot injuries to Jitendra son of Ramnath, Amardeep son of Ratapal and Sachin son of Rajendra have sustained knife blows & injuries by Saria over his
head, Nitin has received bat injury. On raising alarm co-villagers assembled at the spot, but the assailants fled away from the site. On this prosecution story the FIR was registered within no time of the incident.
(5) After lodging of the FIR the injured were brought for their medical examination. Injured No.1 Amardeep son of Ratanpal was examined on the same day i.e. 29.04.2019 at 11.00 p.m.. He has sustained two gunshot injuries over his person, cumulatively four gunshot injuries. X- ray of left thigh and left hip was advised. Whereas injured no.2- Jitendra Singh son of Ramnath at the same time and date have sustained seven gunshot injuries in all have received four gunshot injuries over his body. He was advised CT of Head, left parietal bone, x-ray of right thigh and femur and there is recovery of a foreign body (bullet) and as per doctor the injuries were grievous in nature. Third injured-Sachin son of Rajendra Singh was also examined at same time have received three injuries over his body said to have been caused by hard and blunt object. Fourth injured Nitin was never brought for any medical examination.
(6) From the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, it has come out, that the informant is the Pradhan of the village and aware of the case of the injured persons. They all belong to Jatav community. During investigation the police has recorded the statements of Jitendra (the injured), Amardeep (the injured), Sachin (the injured), Nitin, Rahul (an eye witness) (Annexure-4). The injured persons are most natural witnesses of the incident along with others, without mincing words, unequivocally have attributed the role of firing upon Rajan & Chintoo. The injured Jitendra submits on account of this firing transaction he has sustained three gun shot injuries whereas, Amardeen has received two gunshot injuries.
(7) The recovery memo is at Annexure-5 to the affidavit dated 03.05.2019, prepared by the police after effecting arrest of named assailants. From the recovery memo, it is clear that from the Chinto @ Nitin son of Shyamvir, the police has recovered a pistol of 9 mm bore (a weapon of prohibited bore) carrying its magazine containing two live cartridiges of same bore i.e. 9 mm whereas from the applicant a countrymade katta of 315 bore and a live cartridge of same bore was recovered.
(8) Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellant has also filed a detailed supplementary affidavit dated 19.072021 annexing various documents and expanding the pleadings. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that during course of investigation on 01.05.2019, Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act was added in the present case. The attention of the Court was drawn to the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Dr. Pushpendra Pawar & Dr. Satendra Anni, who have treated both the injured (Annexure SA-1).
(9) It was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that both these doctors have opined that injuries sustained by the injured persons, though grievous in nature, but not enough to take the life of the injured. Thus, it would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC.
(10) It is further stated that the Investigating Officer of the case have already submitted the charge sheet in the matter & thus nothing is left to be investigated, and thus deserves to be bailed out. More over the appellant is falsely implicated having no motive or mens rea to commit this offence. Besides this, no specific role has been attributed to the appellant, nor there is any justifiable reason coming from the side of the prosecution for reducing the number of assailants from four to two, who said to have caused firearm injuries to the injured.
(11) The said injured persons were admitted in the hospital and were discharged on 04.05.2019 and 06.05.2019 respectively, goes to show that the injuries are not dangerous to life and the police have recorded their statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. after lapse of more than one months and five days of the incident should be taken with pinch of salt.
(12) Thus addressing all above issues learned counsel for the appellant urged from the Court that keeping in view the above shortcomings & drawback and ignoring the same, the case would not go beyond the limits of Section 325 IPC.
(13) So far as the criminal antecedents of the appellant is concerned, they were duly explained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit.
(14) Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, who has filed detailed counter
affidavit on his behalf. It is contended that the appellant is a harden criminal, a known figure of the area. Despite of the fact that he is in jail, extending threats to the victims to withdraw the case against him and his members. The victims are at the recovering end, on account of their castes. The appellant is Jaat by caste and the victims are Jatav community. The medical prescription of the Jitendra annexed as Annexure CA-1 indicates that besides three gunshot injuries, he has sustained fracture of left parietal bone with overlying soft tissue swelling and received 28 stitches over his head and thereafter remained hospitalized for 9 good days and still not able to perform his work.
(15) After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court finds that there is ocular testimony of the incident, supported by 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the injured persons (most natural witness of the incident), coupled with the facts, that there is recovery of prohibited bore weapon from the co-accused Chintoo & countrymade pistol from the appellant of 315 bore. So far as nature of injuries over the injured persons are concerned, it was attack by the mob of seven persons including the appellant. The appellant has actively participated in the commission of the offence and was attributed the role of fire arm. All the named accused persons are accused for offence under Section 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC and other allied Sections of IPC.
(16) Recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another decided on 20.07.2021 while deciding the Crl. Appeal No. 572/573 of 2021 have opined:-
(17) In the instant case, the appellant was actively participated and was attributed role of firing. Rest of the other gang members have brutally assaulted on the head of injured Jitendra
containing 28 stitches over his head, thus it cannot be said that the injuries are limited upto Section 325 IPC only, when the appellant is active members of that unlawful assembly. Not only this, there are criminal antecedents of many cases and in one case, he has been convicted by trial court, whose appeal is pending before this Court.
(18) Thus, taking into account the totality of circumstances and active participation of the appellant in the commission of the offence coupled with the fact the applicant has a criminal antecedent, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the bail rejection order passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut dated 22.06.2019. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly REJECTED.
However, in the event, the applicant is furnished the copy of this order before the learned trial court, the trial court may gear up and conclude the trial of the appellant unaffected by the observations made in the present order by this Court within a period of two and half years from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the parties renders fullest cooperation in early conclusion of the trial.
Order Date :- 05.10.2021 Nisha/Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.06.13 17:32:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail rejection order should be set aside given the appellant's alleged active participation and criminal antecedents.
Whether injuries sustained by victims are sufficient to proceed only under Section 325 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and AnotherRelied on¶22
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajan Chaudhary
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
