Allowed¶13

Moolchand Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024CRLA/2747/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 2747 of 2024, decided 16.12.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:84126. Bail appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act; negligent delivery / medical negligence; death of newborn and mother; Sections 304/315/504 IPC; Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act; case crime 161/2024, P.S. Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar; informant did not support prosecution case; no previous conviction; custody since 17.06.2024; bail granted on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 13.08.2024 in Bail application No. 1284/2024 set aside; appellant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions (paras 16-21). ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 1284/2024 (case crime No. 161/2024) refusing bail to the appellant should be set aside and the appellant released on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

The learned court below failed to appreciate the material available on record; consequently, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Bail was favoured because the informant had not supported the prosecution case, the appellant had undergone a period of incarceration, and the appellant is not a previous convict.

¶12

Key takeaways

The criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 1284/2024, arising out of case crime No. 161/2024, is set aside.ratio¶13
The appellant Moolchand Maurya is to 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 conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and presence before the trial court.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14A(2), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 13.08.2024 in Bail Application No. 1284/2024 (case crime No. 161/2024, Sections 304/315/504 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar). Prosecution alleged negligent delivery at a private hospital causing the death of the newborn and subsequently the mother. Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-1 informant, examined before the trial court, denied the prosecution story in cross-examination, and that the appellant was in jail since 17.06.2024 with no previous antecedents. Held: on the informant's statement not supporting the prosecution case, the period of incarceration undergone, and the absence of previous conviction, the court below failed to appreciate the material on record. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, presence at trial, with reference to Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Section 82 CrPC).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84126

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2747 of 2024 Appellant :- Moolchand Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Om Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Misra,Dev Mani Mishra,Ramkripal Yadav,Satendra Kumar (Singh)

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 1284/2024, arising out of case crime No. 161/2024, under Sections 304/315/504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) and S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that wife of the informant who was pregnant was taken to Ayush Multiple Hospital where Dr. Moolchand Maurya (appellant) assured that both mother and the newly born child will be saved during the delivery. Trusting him, she was admitted on 15.06.2024 at about 4:00 pm and Rs. 60,000/- was deposited as fee. The operation took place on 16.10.2024 in the morning at about 4:00 am in which a boy child was born, however, after three hours, due to negligent delivery, he died around 7:00 am. He was cremated. After returning, the informant found that his wife is also dead. Thereafter, the appellant and his staff by concealing the incident and by providing ambulance, referred the deceased to the

¶9

District Hospital where she was admitted and was further referred to Medical College where doctors informed that she is already dead.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent. The appellant has nothing to with the matter. He has been falsely implicated by the police personnel. PW-1 informant has been examined before the trial court and in the cross-examination, he has totally denied the prosecution story. The appellant has no previous criminal antecedents. He is languishing in jail since 17.06.2024. There is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.

¶11

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application.

¶12

On due consideration to the statement of the informant wherein he has not supported the prosecution case; period of incarceration gone into by the appellant, so also the fact that the appellant is not a previous convict, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 13.08.2024 passed in Bail application No. 1284/2024, arising out of case crime No. 161/2024, under Sections 304/315/504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) and S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar is set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant-applicant/ Moolchand Maurya involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶15

court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶20

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

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

¶22

Oder Date :- 16.12.2024

¶23

R.C.

¶24

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

Moolchand Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolchand Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunaina Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Bajrangi Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Bahadur @ Raj Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Beenu @ Rajesh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ravi Prakash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Ravi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another