Allowed

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024ABAIL/1936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant apprehending arrest under IPC 504 and the S.C./S.T. Act. The court held that the failure to name the victim's caste did not attract the S.C./S.T. Act and granted bail based on dicta in Sushila Aggarwal and the applicant's undertaking to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before trial court, non-pressurization of witnesses, and no inducing tampering with evidence.

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61229

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1936 of 2024 Applicant :- Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Mohd. Akram Siddiqui

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Suphal

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in case crime/FIR No. 592/2022, under Sections 504 IPC and Section 3(1) of DHA of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶9

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the complainant brought his wife to the hospital of the accused-applicant for her treatment and treatment was provided to her, however, given to the serious condition of the wife of the complainant, he was advised to sign certain forms to give his consent which he refused and it is alleged that the applicant started skirmishing and demanded huge money from the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant was beaten and the applicant hurled caste related abuses to the complainant in public view.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as statement of the prosecution witnesses, prima facie do not attract any offence under Section S.C./S.T. Act as name of the caste of the victim has not been taken by the applicant and therefore, in view of "Prathvi Raj

¶11

Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727", the bar envisaged under Section 18 of S.C./S.T. Act will not come in the way in entertaining the anticipatory bail application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

On due consideration to the statement of the independent witnesses as well as considering the fact that charge sheet in the matter has been filed, so also the undertaking given by the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the liberty of the applicant may be protected in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶15

In view of the above, since, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, if the applicant is summoned to face trial for offence in question, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court

¶21

below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶22

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Order Date :- 4.9.2024 R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar 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

Phool Chandra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Another vs NTPC Ltd. Thru. Cmd New Delhi and 2 Others

Waseem Alias Waseem Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Saleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko

Ram Krishna Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Irrigation Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Bhure Qureshi @ Shakeel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.