The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of the appellant charged under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(4) of S.C./S.T. Act. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the lower order and dismissed the appeal.
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. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2021
Appellant :- Amir Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Adil Jamal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Tyagi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State and learned counsel for the first informant through video conferencing.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copies of lower Court bail record) and the documents (instruction and case diary) available with the learned A.G.A are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities, 1989) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 25.11.2020, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Baghpat in Bail Application No. 1708 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 96 of 2020, under Sections 307 I.P.C. and 3(2)(4) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Khekda, District Baghpat.
As per the prosecution case, applicant and co-accused Atul caused firearm injury on the brother of the complainant, namely, Praveen; specific role of causing firearm injury has been assigned to the applicant; on pointing out of the applicant, a country made pistol was recovered; eye-witness Ankit stated that the applicant and other co-accused had gang raped the sister of Praveen, consequently she died; the applicant had gone to the village (at the residence of the complainant) to pressurize the complainant and his family members to enter into a compromise.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in FIR being case crime no. 95 of 2020 was lodged by the side of the applicant alleging that the complainant was assailant; in the said case, the side of the applicant also received injury. It is further urged that co-accused Atul has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court; Praveen and Ankit accused in case crime no. 95 of 2020 lodged by the side of applicant have already been enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that eye-witness account has named the applicant; applicant has gone to the house of the complainant to presurrize them to settle the matter out side of the Court in the case earlier lodged by the sister of the Praveen. He further submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned rejecting the bail application.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021 Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal seeking to set aside the bail rejection order under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(4) of S.C./S.T. Act should be allowed.
If any illegality or infirmity exists in the order rejecting the bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amir
State of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
