Allowed

Rohit Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024/2286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the bail rejection order, citing unsubstantiated general allegations in the FIR, lack of specific role for the appellant, and prolonged incarceration, granting bail subject to standard and additional conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orderdated 08.07.2024 rejecting bail is set aside. The appellant Rohit Prajapati is released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each each with additio

Rohit Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69698

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2286 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rohit Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh,Karun Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

1. Case called out.

¶7

Considering the Office Report dated 30.08.2024 as also Annexure No. 1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State with a proof of service of notice upon respondent no. 2, this Court finds that service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant appeal.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 982 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 307, 308/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(v) 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 08.07.2024, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the incident took place at the site/situs of crime situated at Village - Badli Ishipur, Police Station - Kowali Dehat, District Pratapgarh for the reason that both the appellant was attending the reception ceremony of S/o Gurudeen, father of co-accused Jai Prajapati, and in the said function, disc jockey (in short "DJ") was organized and the sideopposite was opposing the same, accordingly between the parties altercation took place and the injured(s) namely Vikash Bauddh, Gulshan Saroj, Vikas Saroj, Mangaru Saroj, Brij Lal Saroj and Anantu Ram sustained the injuries and all the injuries sustained are simple in nature except one grievous injury sustained by Vikash as would appear from the injury report(s) annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the appeal as also the Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit filed by the State.

¶11

In continuation, it is further submitted that in fact, appellant has been implicated only on account of the relationship with the coaccused Jai Prajapati and the appellant was not present at the site of crime when the incident took place.

¶12

It is further submitted that if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value then no offence is committed by the appellant as in the FIR general allegations have been levelled against the appellant and specific role has not been assigned/attributed to anyone.

¶13

It is further submitted that the injured, during the investigation, have also not assigned specific role to anyone. They have also levelled general allegations to all the co-accused..

¶14

It is further submitted that in fact, the side-opposite was aggressor as they were under the influence of liquor which is evident from the medical report of injured Brij Lal Saroj and in fact who was the aggressor is a subject matter of the trial.

¶15

Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 24.03.2024 and have no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶17

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses of prosecution.

¶18

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that general allegations have been levelled in the FIR and specific role has not been assigned/attributed to the appellants as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶19

The order dated 08.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 982 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, under Sections - 323, 504, 506, 307, 308/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh is set aside.

¶20

Let appellant- Rohit Prajapati, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the

¶21

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶22

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶23

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶24

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) 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.

¶27

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

¶28

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶29

(viii) 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.

¶30

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Chandra Katiyar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar @ Shamu Pradhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Shilpa Devi Thru. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Vs Siya Ram and Another

Aashiq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Smt. Komal Thru. His Husband Sunil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Krishna Dwivedi @ Karantoo and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another