Allowed

Shah Alam @ Buddhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLA/785/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court found that the lower court committed an illegality by ignoring the uncertainty about the cause of death and rejecting bail merely because the deceased was from a Scheduled Caste community.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

Shah Alam @ Buddhan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 785 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Shah Alam @ Buddhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla,Sanjai Kumar Pandey,Shivendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Siddharth Saran

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This case has been taken up on the mention made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This appeal has been filed by appellant Shah Alam @ Buddhan against the order dated 23.01.2020 of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti passed in Bail Application No. 82 of 2020 ( Shah Alam vs. State of U.P.), arising out of S.S.T. No. 86 of 2019, Case Crime No. 51 of 2019, under sections 323, 304, 504 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District- Basti, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the deceased himself in respect of the incident dated 15.03.2019 on the same day against the applicant and the F.I.R. version is that on the said date when informant was sitting on his door the appellant came on the door and started taking Ganja and when he was prevented, he started abusing by caste related words and hit on the head of the informant by a brick.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel is that the applicant is in jail from the last more than 20 months. Further submission is that

¶9

the post mortem report shows that one old scar was found on the right side of the head of the deceased and also an old contusion was found on both side of chest. There is nothing in F.I.R. in respect of second injury nor any thing has been alleged stating that except the injury cause on head some more injury has been cause by the appellant. Further submission is that if the F.I.R. version is taken to be true, it is a case of single injury which dilutes the culpability on the part of the appellant, more so, because it is F.I.R. version that at that time the appellant was taking Ganja and he was under the influence of ganja. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the death has occurred after 15 days from the date of incident and initially the F.I.R. was lodged for causing simple injury. It has been further submitted that it is not certain from the version of the F.I.R. that the injury in the nature of contusion on chest by which there was fracture on RT side 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs and LT side 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs was caused during incident. Submission is that the learned Special Judge did not consider the material aspect and uncertainty with regard to cause of death and rejected the bail application of the appellant, simply because the deceased belong to scheduled caste community, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶10

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that by virtue of the death of the injured, in respect of which F.I.R. was lodged, it is clear that the F.I.R. version is correct, therefore, there appears to be no illegality in the order.

¶11

Considered the submission made by learned counsel for both

¶12

the sides. It is clear in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the deceased himself only one injury was allegedly caused by the appellant by using a brick on his head except this injury nothing has been stated in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that injured was not examined and subsequently after 15 days he died. In view of the incident and also in view of the fact that the appellant is in jail from last 20 months, I find that learned Special Judge has committed illegality in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order is not sustainable under law, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti is set aside.

¶14

Let appellant-applicant Shah Alam @ Buddhan be released on bail in Bail Application No. 82 of 2020 ( Shah Alam vs. State of U.P.), arising out of S.S.T. No. 86 of 2019, Case Crime No. 51 of 2019, under sections 323, 304, 504 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Walterganj, District- Basti, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 Bhanu

Shah Alam @ Buddhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Alam @ Buddhan 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

Yograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gangaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd.Rizwan @ Mohd.Hiraq and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another