Allowed

Vikki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/2146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed special leave to appeal on additional grounds regarding bail in an SC/ST atrocity case involving culpable homicide. The court observed procedural lapses and trial delays as grounds for disserving the impugned bail rejection order and granting bail with strict conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

Vikki Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2146 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Vikki Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla,Kamal Kishore Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Second Bail Application No. 2381 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 64 of 2019, under Sections 302, 436, 506, 326A I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(iv) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur.

¶8

Against the rejection of the first bail application by the court below vide order dated 25.06.2019, the appellant moved Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2019, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no motive was established by the Investigating OfÏcer during the course of investigation against the appellant. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was having friendship with one of the daughter of the Shivpatta (deceased), namely, Sunita. It is further alleged therein that the Shivpatta as well as her husband were restraining the appellant from talking to Sunita, as a result, the appellant annoyed and on the date of incident, he came to the thatch of the Shivpatta and by pouring petrol, put her on fire. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, Sunita was residing at Village Neona, P.S. Haiderganj, District Faizabad and, therefore, the

¶10

prosecution story is highly improbable. It is also submitted that dying declaration is also not reliable since as per the prosecution case, Shivpatta was brought to the hospital in 89% burn condition and no certificate had been given by the doctor that she was in a position to speak. It is next submitted that the trial is not going on and till today, only one witness has been examined and in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that adequate legal aid is also not available to the appellant and it is the duty of the trial court to consider this fact that appropriate legal aid be also made available to the accused for fair trial. Learned counsel for the appellant, thus, submits that the appellant, who is in jail since 03.02.2019, is entitled for bail. He also undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and submit that there are sufÏcient evidences against the appellant and in the dying declaration of Shivpatta, she categorically stated that appellant caused the injury. However, they do not dispute the fact that there is no certificate issued by the doctor that whether Shivpatta was able to speak when she was having 89% burn injuries.

¶12

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 bail application, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the statement of Sunita and her husband was never recorded by the Investigating OfÏcer. Further, no certificate has been issued by the doctor that whether Shivpatta, who was having 89% burn injuries, was in a condition to speak.

¶13

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

¶14

substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶15

Impugned order dated 12.10.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Second Bail Application No. 2381 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 64 of 2019, under Sections 302, 436, 506, 326A I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(iv) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such

¶21

default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

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

Ishhak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Ajeet Kumar vs the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Nithuri Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Suchendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another