Allowed

Ajay Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023CRLA/3386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act involving death of a victim due to grievous injury. The court set aside the lower order and released the appellant on personal bond and sureties without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to four conditions regarding cooperation, no tampering with evidence, and no criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3386 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Ajay Gupta

¶4

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Manvendra Narain Pathak

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶8

Heard Shri R.K.Paramhans Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Deoria whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 432 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2021, under Sections 304, 323, 352, 506, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Gauri Bazar, district Deoria.

¶10

According to prosecution case, when the informant's father namely Shukla Prasad went to the shop of appellant, Ajay Gaur to complain that he has given less quantity of sugar to his grand son Nikhil, the appellant and his two minor sons abused and beaten the father of informant aged about 60 years by axe and kundal causing grievous injury on head, scapula and chest and when the villagers reached there, the appellant and his sons ran away from the place of occurrence. On receiving information, the informant and his maternal uncle took away his father and got his father admitted in the district hospital where the advice was given for CT Scan but before CT Scan could be done, the informant's father died on 29.07.2021.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parti bandi. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged after delay of 13 days and no plausible explanation has been given for delay. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the witnesses whose statement has been recorded under Section 161 CrPC i.e. informant Virendra and deceased's wife Indrawati had reached

¶12

at the spot after the incident. It is next submitted that the injuries received by deceased were not fatal. It is also submitted that according to prosecution case, injured died due to injury caused by axe by the appellant but axe has not been recovered from the possession of the appellant nor there is FSL report about the axe. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 01.08.2021 and, in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, the injury report of the injured, the statements of witnesses, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 01.08.2021, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Ajay Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶18

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶20

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶21

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel

¶22

the bail of the appellant.

¶23

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/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

¶25

Pratima

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Gupta 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

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swapnil Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nazma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aasma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyendra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhuvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another