Allowed

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023CRLA/9911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in an SC/ST Act case alleging murder of an S.C. husband over unpaid land sale money. The High Court set aside the rejection order, citing one-sided investigation and Article 21 rights, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties under four specific conditions.

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 26.04.2023 Delivered On:- 08.05.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9911 of 2022 Appellant :- Surendra Kumar Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abdul Mazeed

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Abdul Mazeed, learned counsel for the opposite party no 2 and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 478 of 2022, under Sections302 and 406 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Basti.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that about six years ago the appellant, who belongs to village of the informant had sold six biswa of land of the informant but has kept the total sale consideration of Rs. 24 lakh. His husband repeatedly demanded the aforesaid money from the appellant but he kept on avoiding on one pretext or the other. After two months in November, the marriage of the son of the informant was fixed. Yesterday on 30.08.2022 at about 06:00 am the appellant came to her house and took her husband on the assurance that he will pay the due amount to her

¶8

¶9

husband. At about 01:00 p.m a missed call came on the mobile phone of a fellow villager of the informant, namely, Rajan Chowdhary. Rajan Chowdhary called from his phone to her husband. The phone was not picked by her husband but by appellant and he informed that the husband of the informant is not well and he is being taken to the primary health centre. When she reached the primary health centre with her neighbours and cousin, Vinod Kumar, Satish Chandra, Ajay Kumar and wife of Vinod Kumar, she found that her husband had died prior to being taken to primary health centre. She found both the palms, feet and nails of the legs of her husband black. Apprehension was expressed in the FIR that the appellant in order to avoid payment for the money due to the husband of the informant has taken her husband to his house and committed his murder. He belonged to the schedule caste.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. He has referred to the statements of driver of the appellant, Smt. Jaiphula, her husband, Makhanchu and Dr. Heera Lal, who informed that the husband of the informant had gone to the field of the appellant where paddy was being irrigated and he suddenly fell sick and started sweating. He was taken for medical treatment, but he died. Dr. Hira Lal, has also testified to the illness of the deceased. Similar statements were recorded by the investigating officer and other witnesses also.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further pointed out to the post-mortem report of the deceased wherein the 7th rib on right side of chest of deceased was found to be fractured. There was no external injury found on the body of the deceased. He has explained that after the deceased suffered a heart attack, he was given cardio pulmonary resuscitation. When his chest was being compressed for reviving his heart, the 7^th rib of the deceased on right side got broken. There is nothing in the post-mortem report which may indicate that any injury was caused on the

¶12

¶13

chest of the deceased. He has further submitted that there is nothing in the FIR indicating as to what was the number of land, its situation and the date of sale which brought Rs. 24,00,000/- as sale consideration and how and why the sale consideration was handed over to the appellant who was neither the seller nor purchaser of the same. He has submitted that it is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. The appellant is in jail since 03.09.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶14

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer of the appeal but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 12.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of

¶18

¶19

the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let appellant, Surendra Kumar Chaudhary , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses

¶23

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶25

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

¶26

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶29

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law within a period of one year after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶30

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶31

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶32

Order Date :- 08.05.2023

¶33

Rohit

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary 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

Mohammad Abid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Hayat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meer Babudeen Vs State of U.P. and Another