Allowed

Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/2454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal challenging the rejection of bail by the Special Judge. The court found the prosecution case weak due to witness denials and conflicting affidavits, releasing the appellant on bail with personal bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72827

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2454 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Umesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Rajendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State, Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/informant, Sri Maneesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.P. Singh, learned counsel for the injured/Sandeep and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3.

¶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 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabnki, in Bail Application No. 2360 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 316 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 of BNS and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Tikait Nagar, District-Barabanki.

¶8

It is stated that according to the case of the prosecution which reflects from the FIR No. 0316 of 2024 dated 13.07.2024 lodged under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 of BNS and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, is that the accused-appellant and one Manish Singh on 13.07.2024 at about 12:00 noon assaulted the informant/Sriram and Sandeep with slaps and danda and also hurled abuses and made casteist remarks and this incident occurred on account of refusal of informant and Sandeep to put their thumb impression on blank paper and the opposite party No.3/injured tried to settle the dispute and rescue the informant and Sandeep, the appellant became annoyed and therefore the appellant caused fire arm injury on the leg of the opposite party No.3.

¶9

It is stated that Sandeep, whose name finds place in the FIR, has denied the alleged story of the prosecution. In continuation, it is stated that para 5 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of Sandeep would indicate that no such incident took place on

¶10

13.07.2024 as indicated in the FIR.

¶11

It is further stated that it also appears from the record including short counter affidavit filed on behalf of Sandeep as also documents collected and submitted by the Investigation Officer alongwith the charge sheet that Sandeep has not sustained any injury.

¶12

It is further stated that the residents of the vicinity also submitted the affidavit(s) before the Court concerned indicating therein that they have not seen the incident. These witnesses are Mangray @ Ram Pali, Keshar Bux Singh, Kamal and Raj Kumar Mishra and name of these persons have been indicated by the prosecution in Column No. 13 of the charge sheet.

¶13

It is also submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to establish the case before the trial Court. Further submission is that the case of the prosecution is doubtful for the reason aforesaid as also for the reason that after investigation charge sheet has been filed only against the accused-appellant and co-accused namely Manish Singh has been exonerated.

¶14

It is further stated that in fact a perusal of the affidavit(s) of the witnesses of the prosecution filed before the Court concerned would also indicate that the injured/opposite party No. 3 himself caused the injury.

¶15

Further submission is that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value, even then, the offence under Section 307 BNS is not made out against the accused-appellant in view of the injury sustained as also that there was no intention to cause bodily injury which can cause death. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & Others, (1988) 4 SCC 551; Parsuram Pandey and Others vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189; Panchram vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 394; Jage Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and also the judgment passed by the High Court of Culcutta in C.R.A. 222 of 2001 (Jamser Ali & Anr. vs. the State) decided on 07.05.2024.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/informant and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3, opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶17

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties including complainant/informant and injured(s) and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶18

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. as also learned counsel for the informant-complainant, F.I.R., impugned order, as also the law on the issue, including the judgment(s) on the issue, referred above, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶19

The impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabnki, in Bail Application No. 2360 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 316 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 of BNS and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Tikait Nagar, District-Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Umesh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶24

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶29

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 observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Vinay/-

¶33

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

Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Surya Narayan Pandey vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Prin. Secy. Cooperative, Govt. of U.P., Lko. and Others

Master Krishna Thru. His Mother Puspa Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko. and 5 Others

Vedika Dwivedi Thru. Her Mother Priya Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sastey Vs State of U.P.

Harinam Vs State of U.P .

Vikas Chaudhri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others