Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 May 2024/830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a bail rejection order. Finding the appellant's case similar to that of a co-accused whose bail was previously granted, the Court set aside the lower court's refusal and directed the release of the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order dated 15.02.2024 was set aside. Appellant Gopal Singh released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and eight specific conditions including appearance in court and cooperation

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33881

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 830 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Gopal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Despite service of note upon opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court proceeds hear the instant appeal.

¶7

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

¶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 15.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 210/12A/2024 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC,and Section, 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich.

¶9

Vide order dated 22.04.2024, this Court allowed the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1421 of 2024 filed by co-accused Satrohan Bahelia and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.04.2024 reads as under:

¶10

"4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the FIR the role of assault has been attributed to 07 accused persons including the applicant, however, after thorough investigation charge sheet has been filed against the two accused persons and thus, prima facie the version of the incident/ occurrence as stated by the informant in the FIR has not been believed by Investigating Officer in view of the material/ evidence collected during the course of investigation.

¶11

5. It is further submitted that soon after the death of the deceased in the inquest report pertaining to him opinion of the 'Panch' witnesses including the wife (informant) and other relatives of the deceased was recorded in terms that the deceased had died due to some sickness and thereafter a story has been developed pertaining to assault given by the applicant and co-accused persons.

¶12

6. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant's family and the family of the deceased is having established enmity, which is also evident by the fact that two earlier First Information Reports lodged by the family of the deceased against the applicant and his other family members and it is only on account of this fact the applicant has been involved in this case.

¶13

7. During the course of submissions, learned cousnel for the applicant has also highlighted the fact that on 20.9.2023 at 6.30 P.M. the deceased was taken to C.H.C. Shivpur and he was found bleeding from nose and it is also evident that he was taken through an Ambulance (emergency 108) as he was referred to some higher Center by C.H.C. Shivpur and the statement of the informant recorded

¶14

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is to the tune that it was accused Chndrabhal who had himself called Ambulance and deceased was taken to the hospital. It is vehemently submitted that having regard to the probability this statement of the informant could not be believed as to why a person who has himself assaulted the deceased would call the ambulance for him.

¶15

8. It is further submitted that the deceased is shown to have sustained 04 injuries on his person including one old unhealed injury and in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witnesses role of assault has been attributed to 07 accused persons, which has not been believed by the Investigating Officer and thus in absence of any premeditation or any overt act assigned to any of the accused persons including the applicant it may not be ascertained at this stage as to who from amongst the accused persons was the author of the fatal injury, which has been sustained by the deceased on his head, resulting in death.

¶16

9. It is also submitted that having regard to the established enmity between the parties the false application of the applicant may also not be ruled out. The applicant is in jail in this case since 29.11.2023. Criminal history of three cases has been explained in paragraph no.44 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, however, the applicant is not a convict and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶17

10. Learned A.G.A, however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant along with other accused persons have assaulted the deceased and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

11. Perusal of the record would reveal that the role of assault with 'lathi-danda' has been assigned to 07 accused persons named in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged by none other than the wife of the deceased, namely, Shanti Devi. The same Shanti Devi was 'Panch' witness of the inquest report of the deceased along with other family members and they are of the view that the deceased had died due to some sickness. The FIR of this case could only be lodged on 22.9.2023 at 1.23 P.M. while the deceased as per the documents made available by the applicant on record had died on 20.9.2023 when he was being transported in an ambulance to higher Medical Center. The criminal history of three cases have been adequately explained. The other defence of the applicant appears to be that as the role of assault has been attributed to many accused persons, in absence of any overt act it may not be ascertained at this stage as to who from amongst the accused persons, was the author of the fatal injury, which has been sustained by the deceased on his head. He is detained in prison since 29.11.2023. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶19

13. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

14. Let the applicant-Satrohan Bahelia involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- "

¶21

Taking note of the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Satrohan Bahelia and criminal history of three cases has been explained in para 45 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application as also that

¶22

applicant is languishing in jail since 12.01.2024 accordingly, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 210/12A/2024 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 399 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC,and Section 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let appellant, Gopal Singh 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 :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 1.5.2024

¶35

Jyoti/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Pankaj Jaiswal Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Chhotu Mishra @ Raveendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Pankaj Jaiswal vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Farman @ Motu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Ahsan @ Hasan @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Ahsan @ Hasan @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another