Criminal Appeal dismissed against bail grant to an accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a Scheduled Castes Act case, holding statutory notice requirements met via summons application and no merit in other contention.
Criminal Appeal No. 3381 of 2024 dismissed; bail order of 24.01.2024 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114229
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3381 of 2024
Appellant :- Sita Ram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Dharmendra Kumar,G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Sita Ram-Complainant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushi Nagar, whereby bail application of accused-opposite party no.2, under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No.144 of 2020, under Sections 363, 342, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar has been allowed.
Learned counsel for complainant-appellant has argued that on his complaint, a Case Crime No.144 of 2020 was registered, wherein specific accusations against opposite party no.2, his son namely Azaharuddin as well as two unknown persons were made, wherein after completion of investigation a charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed against Azaharuddin, but as nothing incriminating was found against opposite party no.2, he was not sent to face trial. It is submitted that after commencement of trial, vide order dated 29th November, 2023 the opposite party no.2 was summoned as an additional accused, who, after his appearance before the trial court, was extended the concession of regular bail vide order dated 24th
January, 2024. Learned counsel has argued that the trial court has hastily extended the concession of regular bail without complying with the mandatory provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as no notice to the complainant-appellant was issued before extending the concession of regular bail to the accused. That apart, according to the learned counsel the opposite party no.2 in his application claimed that he was not involved in any other criminal case, whereas he is involved in three other criminal cases, therefore, in this background, impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the communication dated 19th December, 2023 (Annexure-5), addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar to contend that the conduct of police officials in not executing the arrest warrants against opposite party no.2 was highlighted, therefore, it is evident that the police/prosecution is helping the accused-opposite party no.2. Lastly, learned counsel for appellant has referred to the communication dated 23rd February, 2024 by complainant addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar, and argued that after getting the concession of bail, the accused is threatening the complainant. On these grounds, he prays that impugned order is not sustainable and warrants interference by this Court.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has argued that the concession extended to the appellant vide order dated 24.01.2024 has not at all been misused, therefore, in the absence of any strong ground, the order dated 24th January, 2024 does not call for any interference. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for parties and considering their
submissions, this Court finds that the order dated 29th November, 2023 summoning the opposite party no.2 as additional accused has not been challenged by the additional accused, who in response to the said order, appeared before the trial court and was extended the concession of regular bail vide order dated 24th January, 2024. The argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for appellantcomplainant that in terms of Section 15-A(3) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is mandatory to issue notice to the complainant before hearing the bail plea by accused, is without any merit, as the proceedings against the opposite party no.2 were founded upon an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant Sitaram. Once the Court accepted his application dated 29th November, 2023 and summoned the additional accused to face trial, it would amount to reasonable notice, and further, the interest of the complainant is represented by the public prosecutor. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the statutory conditions contained in Section 15-A(3) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have not been fulfilled.
Similarly, the second argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that opposite party no.2 has not disclosed his previous history regarding involvement in other criminal cases, is also without any merit, because earlier the accused-opposite party no.2 was declared innocent in this case and had not been sent to face trial, who has been summoned as an additional accused, therefore, the previous involvement of accused in two other cases may not be relevant to deny the concession of bail to him.
The last argument raised by the learned counsel for appellantcomplainant that after being released on regular bail vide order dated 24th January, 2024 the complainant has been threatened by the accused to enter into a compromise, but this communication to the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar dated 23rd February, 2024 alone, is not sufficient for cancelling of the bail in the absence of any convincing material to show that actually accused has misused the liberty. Most importantly, this ground was never raised by the complainant before the trial court and is being raised for the first time before the appellate court. Even otherwise, considering the complainant's case and other attending circumstance of the case, the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Meerut, rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the accused and the same does not call for any interference.
Resultantly, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Manish Kr
Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court complied with Section 15-A(3) by issuing mandatory notice to the complainant before hearing the bail plea.
Whether the accused's involvement in other criminal cases is relevant to deny regular bail.
Whether sufficient material exists to show the accused misused bail to threaten the complainant.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sita Ram
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Manoj Bajaj
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
