Appeal against bail rejection dismissed. Court found no fit case for bail due to severity of offence and complicity of accused.
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:195228
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8872 of 2023
Appellant :- Kuldeep Chaturvedi @ Golu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar,Shri Raghavendra Singh
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
List revised.
No one appears on behalf of informant/opposite party no.2.
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 19.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jhansi in Bail Application No. 1605 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi.
As per the version of prosecution on 11.04.2023 at around 8 pm, named accused Jai Hind had taken the brother of informant namely Shiva on his motorcycle. After some time, informant and his uncle Satvir saw that some persons armed with axe and wooden sticks were heading towards the field. On hearing the alarm, when informant alongwith his uncle reached at the place of occurrence, they found that named accused persons were beating his brother mercilessly. On the alarm raised by them,
they fled from the spot. The brother of the informant died on the spot due to injuries sustained by him.
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. The name of the appellant was disclosed in the confessional statement of named accused Jai Hind during investigation in which he attributed specific role to the appellant by attacking upon the deceased by an axe. It is further submitted that on the joint pointing out of appellant and other co-accused Chhotu and Deendayal wooden stick and axe shown to be recovered which is planted. It is further submitted that co-accused Sachin Vanshakar has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31727 of 2023. Criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para-29 of the affidavit filed in support of appeal. The appellant is languishing in jail since 16.04.2023 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 in furtherance of confessional statement of co-accused Jai Hind, appellant was arrested and on the pointing out of appellant and other co-accused wooden stick and axe have been recovered. Witnesses Rajendra Ahirwar and Mukesh Ahirwar during investigation had given their statements that they had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence on the date of incident. Post-mortem report of the deceased also corroborates the version of prosecution. 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 :- 10.10.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep Chaturvedi @ Golu
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
Ashok Kumar Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
