The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected the bail appeal of the appellant charged under the SC/ST预防和 Act and IPC. The Court cited the nature of the fatal offence and recovery of the weapon as grounds to deny bail.
Bail application rejected and criminal appeal dismissed; appellant to remain in custody.
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.
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6391 of 2022
Appellant :- Abhishek Nishad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Maddheshiya,Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari,Ashwani Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Learned counsel for the appellant has filed bail orders relating to co-accused Sangeeta Devi and Chhotak Nishad dated 29.11.2022 and 12.01.2023 passed by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5384 of 2022 and 6439 of 2022 respectively which are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.
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 25.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST) Act, Gorakhpur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 3405 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Belipar, district Gorakhpur.
According to prosecution case, informant's father Chhinak Chauhan, aged about 70 years and his mother Smt. Phool Kumari used to work as a watchman in the mango orchard of Sonu Pandey. On 05.06.2022 at 5.30 p.m. when the appellant accused Abhishek Nishad, co-accused Ram Nath Nishad and Anurag Nishad and one unnamed accused came in the orchard of mango for plucking it, the informant's parents stopped them from doing so. The appellant accused Abhishek Nishad and co-accused Ram Nath Nishad and Anurag Nishad with the common intention of causing death started beating informant's parents Chhinak Chauhan and Smt. Phool Kumari with lathi danda and threatened them how they dared to stop them from plucking mango. The informant's father Chhinak Chauhan has received injury on his head in the occurrence. He was
admitted in Decent Hospital Tara Mandal Gorakhpur for medical treatment and medical treatment of his mother was done at home. The informant's father Chhinak Chauhan died on 13.06.2022 while undergoing treatment
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant accused. It is further submitted that co-accused Sangeeta Devi and Chhotak Nishad, have already been enlarged on bail by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.11.2022 and 12.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5384 of 2022 and 6439 of 2022 respectively. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 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 13.06.2022 and, in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and argued that the appellant accused and other co-accused persons with the common intention of causing death assaulted the informant's father with lathi danda causing grievous injury on his head. He also submitted that weapon of offence bamboo sticks was recovered from the possession of appellant accused Abhishek Nishad from his house behind his tractor.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, complicity of the accused, the fact that injury has been mentioned in the post mortem report of the deceased Chhinak Chauhan, the fact that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the possession of appellant accused Abhishek Nishad, the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant accused on bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Pratima
Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering his role in the fatal occurrence and recovery of weapon.
Whether the fact that co-accused have been granted bail warrants a similar order in the present case.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Abhishek Nishad
State of U.P.
Surendra Singh-I,J.
Pratima Agrahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
