Allowed

Harinath Alias Dhanai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/302/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in an SC/ST Act and attempt-to-murder FIR. The court noted all injuries were simple and on non-vital parts, the accused was in custody since September 2022, and trial would not conclude soon. It allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and granted bail with conditions on attendance and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties; impugned bail-rejection order dated 25.11.2022 set aside.

Harinath Alias Dhanai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3847

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 302 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Harinath Alias Dhanai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Kumar Mishra,Trilok Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is evident from the record that the notice has already been served on private respondents, but no one has put in appearance is present on their behalf.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 605 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 490 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, quarrel was taken place in between the parties. It is admitted case of the prosecution that fire was opened by the appellant, which hit on the wall, in which, the respondents received pallets injury. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statements of injured Satya Kumar and Kamlesh (respondent nos. 3 and 4) were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, they stated that fire was opened on them by the appellant, but there is contradiction in the statements of the informant as well as other injured persons. It is further submitted that the injury report clearly reveals that all injuries are simple in nature found on the vital part of the body of the injured. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed by

¶10

the Investigating OfÏcer and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 09.09.2022, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the private respondents received fire arm injuries. It is further submitted that the role of firing is assigned to the appellant and the gun was also recovered on his pointing out. However, he does not dispute the fact that all the injuries are simple in nature. It is also not disputed that the appellant is in jail since 09.09.2022.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents including the statements of the injured persons, it is evident that the all the injuries are on non-vital part of the body. It is also evident that the appellant is in jail since 09.09.2022.

¶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 substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 605 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 490 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Harinath Alias Dhanai 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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 VKS

¶21

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

Harinath Alias Dhanai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harinath Alias Dhanai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

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

Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rajjan Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Nakul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Amarjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.