Dismissed

Chhathi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023CRLA/8903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal seeking setting aside of an order rejecting bail in a case registered under SC/ST Act and IPC sections. The appellant held that cast derogatory words were not in the FIR but the High Court relied on the trial courts finding of active participation and rejection of the bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; order rejecting bail is upheld.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131375

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8903 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Chhathi Lal And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Kumar,Shashank Shekhar,Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arvind Singh Sengar

¶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 02.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Bail Application No. 2385 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 358 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC, Section 3(1)(Da), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia.

¶8

The prosecution case is that Smt. Shail Kumari wife of deceased has lodged the first information report against the appellants that on 04.10.2022 at around 7.00 AM in the morning in the dispute of cleanliness of drain the appellants beaten up her husband. Her father-in-law, namely, Srinath Baitha came to intervene the matter, he was also beaten by them. The appellants also threatened the informant to face dire consequences.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the first information report no caste derogatory words were mentioned and in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that the appellants have used to caste derogatory words to the informant. It is further submitted that during medical examination of the injured/deceased only one injury was observed while in the postmortem four injuries were observed by the doctor, who conducted the postmortem. Nothing incriminating either on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellants have been recovered. No weapon has been assigned to any of the appellants, which is alleged to be used in the commission of crime. It is further submitted that

¶10

during inquest proceedings no injury was observed on the person of the deceased, which reflects that as per medical report the deceased sustained only one injury and cause of death was ascertained to be septicemia, which was due to negligence of the doctor, under whose supervision the treatment of the deceased was going on. It is also submitted that at the most case would not travel beyond Section 304-A of the IPC. 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 06.10.2022 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 deceased had sustained four injuries and the cause of death was observed to be due to ante mortem injuries sustained on all over the body. The deceased was severely beaten by the appellants. It is further submitted that the witnesses, namely, Baul Yadav and injured Srinath Baitha also narrated the incident in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they stated about the active participation of the appellants in the commission of crime.

¶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 appellants in the commission of crime, I do 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 :- 4.7.2023 Prajapati

¶16

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

Chhathi Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhathi Lal and Another 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

Chandrabhawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithilesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vineet Alias Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Vs State of Up and Another