Allowed

Chhatrapal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023CRLA/4841/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act and IPC, the High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. Citing jail overcrowding and Article 21, the Court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying murder and caste atrocity accusations.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, pressurizing witnesses, seeking adjournments, and committing further crimes

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148327

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4841 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Chhatrapal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Gopal,Abhishek Chauhan,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

On earlier occasion Sri N.K. Mathur, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of informant and was granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶8

List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the informant.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 885 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly.

¶11

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2022 at around 12.00 noon when Mewaram, the husband of the informant was returning to his home the appellant and other co-accused attacked him with 'bent' of the axe with intention to commit murder. Mewaram sustained serious injuries. The appellant threatened the injured and hurled abuses with the caste related words.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that general role has been assigned to all the named persons. It is submitted that in the same set of evidence named

¶13

accused Ajay has been exonerated. No specific role has been assigned to present appellant. It is submitted that witnesses Santosh and Maya Devi who are named in the FIR have also assigned only general role to the appellant. Apart from it, independent witnesses Rakesh Kumar, Ram Singh, Narendra Kumar, Phoobkaran have assigned specific role to co-accused Arun Kumar for hitting with the 'bent' of the axe to the injured. It is further submitted that from the possession of the co-accused Arun the axe has been recovered and no recovery from the possession of the appellant has been made. It is submitted that no caste related words were hurled by the appellant. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2022 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary.

¶15

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 15.04.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let appellant, Chhatrapal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) 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

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶22

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶25

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶26

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.

¶27

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶28

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Mohit

¶29

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

Chhatrapal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tejendar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Muzakkir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another