Allowed

Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024/34/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a murder case with SC/ST Act provisions. All prosecution witnesses of fact had been declared hostile and trial was not likely to conclude soon; the court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail rejection and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Pintu released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties, subject to conditions; impugned bail-rejection order set aside.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27777

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 34 of 2023 Appellant :- Pintu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla,Kamlesh Kumar Gupta,Subodh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Considering the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2023) as also the law propounded by the Full Bench of this Court in this regard, the present appeal be treated within the period of limitation.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

At the outset, on being asked, learned AGA says that the respondent No. 2 has been informed regarding the present appeal and to prove the same, he placed before this Court a copy of notice dated 23.02.2023, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in 2nd Bail Application No. 231 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶10

While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant says that an FIR dated 15.04.2018 was lodged under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act against the appellant and one unknown person and thereafter, the police apprehended the appellant and sent him to judicial custody and the appellant is in jail since 18.04.2018 and till date the statement of 5 witnesses of fact as also the statement of doctor concerned have been recorded. He says that a bare perusal of statements of the witnesses of fact namely Meera Devi/PW1(informant), Neelam/PW-2, Kallu/PW-3, Mailkan/PW-4 and Pawan Kumar/PW-5 would show that they have not supported the story of prosecution and the statement of informant also

¶11

reflects that she also did not support the story of prosecution and in fact all the witnesses of fact of the prosecution have already been declared hostile.

¶12

He further submitted that the trial court while passing the order, under appeal, dated 26.07.2022, whereby, the application seeking bail of the appellant was rejected, took note of the statements of concerned recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer as also the allegations levelled in the FIR against the appellant and other co-accused as also the contents of the report of autopsy surgeon (post mortem report).

¶13

He submitted that in the changed circumstances i.e. the statements of the witnesses of fact recorded during trial as also taking note of the period of custody of appellant and further the fact that formal witnesses are yet to be examined before the trial court and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the order, under appeal, is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

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 including the fact that the witnesses of fact hare already been declared hostile.

¶15

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 statements of witnesses of fact, which are on record.

¶16

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the statements of witnesses of fact, who have already been declared hostile, as also the statement of informant, who in her cross-examination has not supported the story of prosecution, as 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 .

¶17

Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in 2nd Bail Application No. 231 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2018, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside.

¶18

Let appellant Pintu be released on bail in the aforesaid case

¶19

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 :-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Arun/-

¶31

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

Pintu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu 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

Similar cases

Ram Kishun @ Budhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Anoop Kumar @ Nankau and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Bhanmati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another