Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court challenged a bail rejection order for Bhagole. The Court, noting the release of a co-accused on bail and lack of specific role against the appellant, held the lower court failed to appreciate evidence and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.02.2024 set aside; appellants Bhagole and Bhoore released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and sureties.

Bhagole and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29690

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 467 of 2024 Appellant :- Bhagole And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Shukla,Anju Tripathi,Shailesh Kumar Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 07.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 242/12A/2024 (Bhagole and another v. State of U.P.), Case Crime No. 0143 of 2023, under Sections- 323/504/506/304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahraich.

¶8

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶9

He further stated that co-accused namely Nanke has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1912 of 2023. Copy of bail order of co-accused before this Court is taken on record. In these circumstances, the appellant is 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

The relevant portion of the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in the case of coaccused/Nanke on reproduction reads as under:-

¶11

"4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity and village party-bandi. It has also been submitted that the appellant was not present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident, and as he is relative of the other co-accused, his name has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the version of the first information report (F.I.R.), due to some dispute of land the appellant alongwith other named co-accused, named in the F.I.R.,

¶13

started raising construction on the land of the complainant by digging it. When the complainant stopped them, the accused persons started beating her with mukka, thappad, laat-ghoonsa and lathi danda. When mother-in-law of the complainant Raj Kumari tried to save her, the accused persons did beat her also. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323/504/506, I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bearing Case Crime No. 0143 of 2023.

¶14

6. The injured Rajkumari was brought to the hospital and as per the injury-report four injuries were shown and all the injuries were simple in nature as per the Doctor's advice. Thereafter the injured died. Thereafter Section 304, I.P.C. was inserted by the investigating officer.

¶15

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted and as per the postmortem report the cause of death is 'Myocardial Infraction', thus, as per the medical-report of the deceased, role of the appellant does not justify as per version of the F.I.R. Copy of the injury-report as well as the postmortem report are filed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application.

¶16

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the versin of the F.I.R. four persons are shown beating the complainant, including the appellant, but no specific role or weapon has been assigned to the present appellant, thus, it is not case of the prosecution that due to beating by the appellant, Raj Kumari had sustained injuries and she succumbed to those injuries. Another injured namely Kalawati has also not specified any specific role to the appellant and only general role has been assigned to all the four accused persons, who have been named in the F.I.R., thus, the counsel submits that in absence of any specific role or weapon assigned to the present appellant it cannot be said that the death was caused due to the beating of the present appellant, thus, he submits that it is a case of false implication. Actually, the appellant was not present on the spot. Name of the appellant was taken only to give gravity to the alleged offence, as he is relative of the other named accused persons.

¶17

9. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 6.4.2023 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of

¶18

any early conclusion of trial.

¶19

10. Sri Anand Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is an allegation against all the four named accused persons, including the appellant, who have badly beaten the injured Rajkumari, who has died, thus, prima facie, the offence is made. The appellant is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. The appeal deserved to be dismissed, but they have not disputed this fact that no specific role or weapon has been assigned to the appellant, only general role has been assigned to all the appellants and the postmortem report is not corroborated by the injury-report of the victim.

¶20

11. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that injury report of the victim does not corroborate with her postmortem report, no specific role or weapon has been assigned to the appellant, only general allegations have been assigned to all the named accused persons, including the appellant, and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶21

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No.773/12A/2023, Nanke v. State of U.P., Case Crime No. 0143 of 2023, under Sections 323/504/506/304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, is hereby set aside and reversed.

¶22

13. Let the appellant, Nanke be released on bail in the Case Crime No.0143 of 2023, under Sections 323/504/506/304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, with the following conditions:-"

¶23

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellants' counsel particularly that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶24

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,

¶25

F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents.

¶26

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that coaccused/Nanke has already been released on bail 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 07.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 242/12A/2024 (Bhagole and another v. State of U.P.), Case Crime No. 0143 of 2023, under Sections- 323/504/506/304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahraich is hereby set aside.

¶28

Let the appellants- Bhagole and Bhoore 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 :- 15.4.2024/Arun/-

¶40

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

Bhagole 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?

Bhagole 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Niranjan Gaur @ Niranjan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankita Verma and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vimal Singh Solanki and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Roshni and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Ravi Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and Another