The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Dilip Kumar Singh seeking to set aside an order rejecting his bail application under the SC/ST Act. The court affirmed the lower court's refusal to grant bail.
The criminal appeal is dismissed; the bail rejection order is affirmed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150703
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5673 of 2023
Appellant :- Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jash Ram,Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
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 09.05.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 367 of IPC, and Section 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.
The case unfolded in the FIR is that the son of the informant Deepak was receiving education in the house of Ishwari Prasad. On 07.09.2022 at around 6.10 appellant along with named persons took away Deepak with them on motorcycle and had beaten him. His son was not traceable.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged against seven named and 12-13 unnamed persons. It is further submitted that generl role has been assigned to all the persons. No specific role is assigned to present appellant. It is also submitted that all the injuries found on the persons of the injured Deepak were found to be simple in nature. It is submitted that co-accused Priyanshu @ Ragghu has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2023. It is submitted that appellant has criminal history of five cases to his credit which are explained in para 18 of the appeal. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the
provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2023. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
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. He further submitted that so far as the grant of bail to co-accused Priyanshu is concerned, the role of accused Priyanshu was entirely different with the role of the present appellant and accused Priyanshu was not named in the FIR while the present appellant is named in the FIR.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the statement of injured/abducted person, Deepak who is the son of the informant discloses that present appellant with other accused Ambuj Pandey, Ashish Patel, Dilip Patel, Akash Rao, Divyanshu, Rohit Shukla, Adarsh Chaube and other persons who were hiding their face with a cloth, were hurling abuses to the injured. He was asked to apologize and made him lick spit, drink urine. The injured was beaten by the appellant and other persons with a belt on his back.
It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the 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 9.5.2023 is affirmed.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.
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.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Mohit
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against the bail rejection order deserves to be allowed.
Whether the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in a case under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 rejecting the bail application should be affirmed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Kumar Singh
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
