Allowed

Dhappal @ Chhotu and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024/2956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This division bench allowed a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, setting aside the bail rejection order. The court emphasized parity, as co-accused had already been released on bail, and noted the insufficiency of evidence against the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellants: Dhappal @ Chhotu and Paras, on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two reliable sureties each of the like amount.

Dhappal @ Chhotu and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74636

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2956 of 2024 Appellant :- Dhappal @ Chhotu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Ajai Pratap Singh Chauhan,Kunwar Samitinjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anjani Kumar Singh,Mohd.Salman,Mukhtar Ahamad,Vikas Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application Nos. 5721/2024 & 5726/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 323, 307, 504, 506, 509, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)R, S and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Mall, District- Lucknow, whereby the bail applications have been rejected.

¶8

While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶9

He further stated that co-accused namely Kamlesh Alias Kallu and Aryan Alias Amit have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2705 of 2024. Copy of bail order of co-accused Kamlesh Alias Kallu and Aryan Alias Amit placed before this Court is taken on record. In these circumstances, the appellants are also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶10

Relevant portion of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2705 of 2024 on reproduction reads as under:-

¶11

"4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 5102 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 323, 307, 504, 506, 509, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), s and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Mall, DistrictLucknow.

¶12

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is a case of false implication and the appellants having no criminal history are languishing in jail since 07.06.2024.

¶13

6. It is further stated that in the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0103/2024 dated 25.03.2024 lodged by the opposite party No. 2/Dinesh Chandra making

¶14

allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections- 147, 323, 308, 504, 506, 509 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act at P.S.- Mall, District- Lucknow, general role has been assigned to all accused except co-accused Paras, who, as per the FIR, assaulted the wife of opposite party No. 2 with 'Banka'.

¶15

7. It is further stated that as per the injury report, the wife of informant/opposite party No. 2 namely Geeta Devi, the injuries so sustained can also be caused by hard and blunt object, as it indicates acute contusion in left frontal region and the same can also be caused if someone falls on hard and blunt object.

¶16

8. It is further stated that the injuries sustained by Km. Soni are simple in nature, which could also be caused by hard and blunt object, as opined by the doctor concerned.

¶17

9. It is further stated that the case of appellant would ultimately fall under Section 324 IPC, which is bailable.

¶18

10. It is lastly stated that taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case including the injuries sustained by the injured and period of incarceration of appellants and also the fact that in the FIR general allegations have been levelled against all accused except co-accused Paras, the impugned order dated 11.07.2024 is liable to be set-aside and the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

11. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellants' counsel.

¶20

12. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the injury report.

¶21

13. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR and the medical examination/report of the injured/victim and also the role attributed to the appellants and co-accused Paras and 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.

¶22

14. Order dated 11.07.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 5102 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 323, 307, 504, 506 , 509, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), s and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- mall, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶23

15. Let the appellants Kamlesh Alias Kallu and Aryan Alias Amit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-"

¶24

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the side opposite opposed the prayer of the appellants, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶25

Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

¶26

appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and 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 .

¶27

Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application Nos. 5721/2024 & 5726/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 323, 307, 504, 506, 509, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)R, S and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Mall, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶28

Let the appellant- Dhappal @ Chhotu and Paras 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 satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) The appellants 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶37

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.

¶38

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellants 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.

¶39

Order Date :- 12.11.2024/Arun/-

¶40

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

Dhappal @ Chhotu 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?

Dhappal @ Chhotu 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?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tesamullah and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Nokhey and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ji Maurya @ Ram Ji Lal Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gorakh Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others