Allowed

Ram Khilawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 May 2024CRLA/1795/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the rejection of a bail application under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The Supreme Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court order, and granted bail, noting the trial would likely take a long time and specific facts regarding weapon recovery were overlooked previously.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.05.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and strict attendance conditions; trial directed to conclude within one year.

Ram Khilawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68660

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1795 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Khilawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Srees Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Srees Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 941 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 198 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Safipur, District Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution case, deceased as well as appellant were working in their agricultural field and quarrel was taken place in between them in relation to the boundary of agricultural field. He further submits that alleged incident was taken place due to sudden provocation between the parties and injury was caused by the appellant and his son, Ramkhelawan but during the course of investigation, neither banka nor axe was recovered by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that witnesses, namely, Smt. Kanchan Devi, Sangeeta, Rajrani & Ramkishore stated in their statement that quarrel was taken place in between Ramkhelawan Rawat & son of the appellant, in which, son of the appellant injured Ramkhelawan Rawat with the spat and caused injury. He also submits that statement of sisterin-law of the deceased, namely, Jailaxmi was also recorded, in which, she stated that informant was crying by saying

¶9

that co-accused, Ramkhelawan eliminated her husband. He further submits that Investigating Officer concluded the investigation with the observation that injury was caused with the spat. It is next submitted that the informant as well as injured witness have already been examined and there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that after considering entire evidence, it might be a case of Section 304 I.P.C. only. Further, the co-accused, Nanhey Lal @ Nanha @ Nanhu has already been granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2024. It is lastly submitted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 09.07.2023, but all these facts were not considered by the court below and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail. He further submits that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer of the appellant, submits that specific allegations for causing injury with the axe is assigned to the appellant, but he does not dispute the fact that as per the prosecution case, incident was taken place due to sudden quarrel between the parties and the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation with the observation that injury was caused by spat, but neither banka nor axe was recovered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. He also does not dispute that the co-accused, Nanhey Lal @ Nanha @ Nanhu has already been granted bail vide order dated 12.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2024.

¶11

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, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that both the parties were working in their respective agricultural fields, but quarrel was taken place in relation to the boundary of

¶12

their agricultural fields. It is also evident that neither axe nor banka was recovered by the Investigating Officer. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 01.05.2024.

¶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

Order dated 01.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 941 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 198 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Safipur, District Unnao, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant-Ram Khilawan, 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 sufficient 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

¶19

proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶21

Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 VKS

¶23

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

Ram Khilawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Khilawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhaya Pratap Singh Vs Sri Amit Tripathi, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, Lko.

Mansarowar Mining Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Signatory Sh. Pankaj Sharma Vs Anil Kumar Iii, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Geology and Mining, Lko.

Bahoran Singh Vs Sri Amrit Abhijat, Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and Another

Mansoor Ahamad @ Masroor Ahamad vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate, Rae Bareli

Sangeeta Gupta and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Madhyamik Education Lko. and 3 Others

Chandi Prasad vs Shree Arvind Kumar Singh, D.M., Balrampur