Dismissed

Tinku Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023CRLA/6348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order in a case involving a money dispute that allegedly escalated into caste-related abuse, threats, and arson. The Court upheld the Special Judge's finding that the case merits criminal trial and is not fit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.05.2023 was dismissed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151628

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6348 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Tinku Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra in Bail Application No. 1169 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, under Sections 452, 436, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(iii), 3(1)da, 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that the informant has computer centre. The victim was residing in a rented accommodation owned by Shamima Begum. She borrowed Rs.26,000/- from the appellant. After giving money to the informant the appellant on the pretext of that transaction he continued to make frequent calls to the prosecutrix. The appellant made call to the friend of the prosecutrix and asked her that she should inform the prosecutrix to have conversation with the appellant and hurled abuses with caste related words. On 01.05.2023 at around 9.30 am appellant came to the house of the informant having petrol in a bottle and when door was not opened by the informant, the appellant set ablaze the motorcycles parked on the portico/Varandah of the house. The incident was witnessed by the informant also. Thereafter on intervals the appellant mad calls to the victim.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.05.2023 while the first information report of the incident was lodged on 06.05.2023. The victim is not the owner of the Scooty which is said to have been burnt by the appellant. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. Virtually it was a

¶10

money transaction between the appellant and the victim. The appellant did not use any caste related words to the victim. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for opposite party no.2, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the witnesses, namely, Raj Kumar, Shamima Begum and Sonu Kumar, have witnessed the incident and have given their statements to the investigating officer. The witness Kamla informed the victim that the appellant had made calls to her to compel the victim to have conversations with him. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. fully corroborated the version of the FIR.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the active participation of the appellant, I do not not find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 28.7.2023 Prajapati

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Vishwakarma 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

Abhay Pandey @ Kariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishan Lal @ Setti Vs State of U.P.

Waseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Upasana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anushka Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others