Dismissed

Lukesh Arora and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023CRLA/3040/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal against an order rejecting anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Upholding the lower court's discretion, the Bench held that the appellants were not entitled to bail while leaving the trial court to independently assess evidence on merits.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the imugned order rejecting anticipatory bail is affirmed.

Lukesh Arora and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149803

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3040 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Lukesh Arora And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Bhan Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar,Vrat Sheel

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, SAharanpur has rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellants moved by them in Case Crime No. 69 of 2018, under Sections 307, 323, 354Kha, 452, 394, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)d, 3(1) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶8

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant Angoori Devi before the court concerned stating that the incident is of 08.10.2017 at around 2.30 pm. It is averted that when she was alone in her house the appellants entered in her house and abused her with caste related words. Appellant Lokesh fired with firearm weapon but it was accidentally missed. Appellants along with Preetam had beaten the informant with iron rod and wooden stick and also tried to strangulate her. Witnesses Yashoda and Niranjan came at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. The appellant Lokesh snatched golden chain from the informant and threatened her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the alleged eye witness Yashoda has not corroborated the version of the prosecution in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The present case has been lodged as a

¶10

counterblast of the case filed by the appellant Lokesh against the informant in which the informant has been summoned to face trial vide order dated 28.06.2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 504 of IPC. It is further submitted that earlier a civil suit was also pending and there was litigation between the informant and the appellant. The Doctor, who examined the informant has opined that the injuries sustained by the informant were possible by felling her down. The appellants have prima facie a case and are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. It has been stated that appellants are having apprehension of imminent arrest and that appellants have no criminal history to their credit and that in case, they are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants and argued that a civil suit was pending since the year 2006 but now it has been dismissed in default. So far as the argument that this case has been registered as a result of counterblast is concerned, the complaint was filed by the appellant Lokesh in the year 2014 while the present incident is related to the year 2017, therefore, there is no occasion to lodge a false FIR against the appellants. It is further submitted that appellants hurled caste based abuses to the informant. Specific role has been assigned to appellant Lokesh that he was having a firearm weapon with him at the time of incident. It is submitted that the informant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also corroborated the version of the FIR.

¶12

I have heard both the parties and perused the record.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

¶15

parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 03.11.2022 is affirmed.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶17

The criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Mohit

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lukesh Arora and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lukesh Arora 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejendar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muzakkir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhatrapal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqkrar @ Pappal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahasn Vs State of U.P. and Another

Istakar Vs State of U.P. and Another