Jahaji @ Amarchandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1505 of 2023 Appellant :- Jahaji @ Amarchandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Tewari

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Amit Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶4

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 920 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0724 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Unchahar, District Raebareli.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of presumption as well as confessional statement and there is no direct or indirect evidence against appellants. He further submits that prosecution tried to develop a case that deceased tried to outrage modesty of wife of the appellant no.2 one day prior to the date of incident, as a result, he was abducted and strangulated, thereafter, he was hanged with a tree. He further submits that not even a single injury was found on body of the deceased except oblique ligature mark around the neck. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statement of doctor was not taken by the Investigating OfÏcer as there is a contradiction in his opinion as well as injury found on the body of the deceased, as the cause of death is opined due to strangulation but the injury is oblique ligature mark is due to hanging. He further submits that prior to the lodging of F.I.R., information was given to the police by mother of the deceased that he committed suicide by hanging and thereafter, she developed a case in the F.I.R. and at the time of inquest of body of deceased she was present but no complaint was made to the police ofÏcials who

¶6

conduct the inquest of body of the deceased. He further submits that all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the application. He further submits that applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and proper site plan was also not prepared by the Investigating OfÏcer. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 12.12.2022, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶7

In pursuance of earlier order, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Circle OfÏcer, Vidhuna, District Oraiya is present before this Court and stated that during the course of investigation, statement of other witnesses as well as doctor and other accused persons were recorded and accused persons confessed the active participation in the crime.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellants and submit that active participation of the appellants were found on the basis of evidences collected by the Investigating OfÏcer, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order but they do not dispute this fact that neither location on the basis of call detail report of the appellants was examined by the Investigating OfÏcer nor contradictions related to the injury as well as action of the deceased was clarified by doctors.

¶9

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 31.03.2023.

¶10

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶11

Order dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned

¶12

Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 920 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 0724 of 2022, under Sections 302, 364, 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Unchahar, District Raebareli, is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant-applicant, Jahaji @ Amarchandra & Chhotku @ Ajai Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶14

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Gaurav/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jahaji @ Amarchandra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahaji @ Amarchandra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maulik Saraswat (Minor Corpus) Thru. His Mother Smt. Swati Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Patra vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Shiv Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Satya Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another