Dismissed

Tushar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024CRLA/3267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the rejection of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Special Court refused bail due to the serious nature of the offence involving gunshots and的伤害 to SC/ST victims, noting material witnesses were not examined. The High Court found no error in the lower court's reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected by Special Court; High Court dismissed the appeal and left the appellant in custody.

Tushar vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114635

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3267 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Tushar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶7

Appellant-Tushar has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut whereby application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.369 of 2023, u/s 323, 307, 326, 504, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Jani, District Meerut has been rejected.

¶8

On the basis of a complaint by Sainhsar Pal the above mentioned F.I.R. was registered, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant's brother Sohan Pal was working at Government Cow Shelter Home as a caretaker, and around 4 O'clock Kapil S/o Jai Singh, Krish S/o Naresh Yadav and another person resident of same village came there and started beating his brother on an issue of purchase of cow. The assailants with an intention to kill, fired a gun shot which resulted into grievous injuries to the injured, who is admitted in the hospital. At the time of occurrence Naresh son of Nanka was also present at the said place. On these allegations the F.I.R. was registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable u/s 323, 307 I.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant-Tushar has argued that appellant's name is not contained in the F.I.R. and gun shot injury suffered by the injured is attributed to co-accused Krish s/o Naresh Yadav. It is further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he deserves the concession of regular bail, as the investigation is also complete. According to him, the statement of injured was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who stated that two named accused persons, alongwith two sons of Sube entered the cow shelter home and even his statement does not contain the name of the appellant. He submits that in this background the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Meerut, has wrongly dismissed his application u/s 439 Cr.P.C., and prays that the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶10

While opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State has argued that the the injured in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that the named assailants Kapil and Krish were accompanied by two sons of Sube and the appellant Tushar is one of those two persons. He further submitted that, even if, the gun shot injury is attributed to Krish, but as the other co-accused persons also shared their common intention with the said accused, therefore, in this background the impugned order passed by the Special Court is based on correct appreciation of material on record. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Though counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of complainant, but no one has appeared on his behalf.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as per prosecution the assailants attacked the injured and after firing the first gun shot, on

¶13

the asking of Kapil, Krish tried to reload the weapon, but in the meantime the injured managed to escape from the spot. The injury caused as a result of gun shot fire has resulted in loss of vision in his right eye and considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for release of appellant on bail at this stage, as the material witnesses are yet to be examined. The order passed by the Special Court is based upon proper reasoning while refusing to exercise his discretion u/s 439 Cr.P.C. in favour of accused, therefore, it does not call for any interference.

¶14

Resultantly without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Manish Kr

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tushar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Satya Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Pramod Kumar Ojha vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Haldar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Singh Alias Ajay Raj Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Ram vs State of U.P. and Another