Criminal appeal by Jahid challenging bail rejection under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no merit to interfere with the trial court's finding that the case was not fit for bail.
Criminal Appeal No. 8173 of 2023 dismissed.
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:185755
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8173 of 2023 Appellant :- Jahid Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Learned A.G.A. submits that notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2 has been duly served but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P. A.) Act, Hathras in Bail Application No. 496 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2015, under Sections 395, 397, 412, 376 I.P.C. & Sections 3 (2) (V) of S.C./S.T. Act as well as Bail Application No. 499 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2015, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras.
As per the prosecution version, on the date of incident, informant alongwith his family members was sleeping in the terrace of his house, suddenly some unknown persons came to the house of informant and looted Rs. 2,500/-, one mangalsutra , two ear rings and some other jewellery articles. Two male and female buffalo each alongwith one baby buffalo were also stolen in the incident.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that initially on 11.01.2016 after completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 379 and 411 I.P.C. was submitted before the trial court and appellant was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Hathras. Thereafter, on 03.02.2016, an application was moved on behalf of informant for further investigation. Thereafter, statements of complainant and other witnesses Smt. Mithlesh, Smt. Gunjan and wife of informant namely Smt. Sharda Devi were recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which they made certain allegations of rape. Except the appellant none of the other accused was found to be indulged in the incident. After completion of further investigation, second charge sheet under under Sections 395, 397, 412, 376 I.P.C. & Sections 3 (2) (V) of S.C./S.T. Act was again submitted before the trial Court. The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2023 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.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that as per the statements of Smt. Mithlesh, Smt. Gunjan and wife of informant namely Smt. Sharda Devi recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the appellant was identified during incident and they have made allegation of rape against him. It is also submitted that appellant was absconding since 23.11.2017 to 25.01.2023. Recovery relating to the offence under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. was also made from the possession of appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment,, I do not find it fit case for bail.
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.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant who is already in jail since 2023.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the trial court deserves interference on appeal.
Jahid
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
