Allowed

Mohanlal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024CRLA/3458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Mohanlal challenging the rejection of his bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Court quashed the Special Judge's order and granted bail, finding the lower court erred in rejecting the application despite the appellant's innocence claim and the dying declaration.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions.

Mohanlal vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139865

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3458 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mohanlal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 along with learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh.

¶8

It is submitted that in this case the deceased is said to be a labour of brick kiln operated by co-accused Devesh Chaudhary where appellant was working as contractor for supplying the labours. Further submitted that as per version in F.I.R. the deceased made demand of his wages as a result he was thrown on the burning coal and sustained burn injuries and he was taken to the hospital but during the course of treatment he died. Further submitted that the appellant did nothing and he is innocent. Dying declaration was also recorded in which the deceased stated clearly that the contractor took him on the brick kiln for work. He made demand for his 15 days wages from the contractor just one day prior to the alleged incident when 3-4 persons came there and threw him on the burning coal and he got injuries. In this way, the present appellant was not involved in causing injuries to the deceased which shows that he is innocent and has committed no offence. Entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement are false. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same, even in the dying declaration, the present appellant has not been alleged by the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. Appellant is in jail since 14.09.2023 having no criminal antecedent. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the

¶9

appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case appellant was working as contractor in the aforesaid brick kiln and did not make payment of wages to the deceased and when demand was made by the deceased the appellant and other co-accused persons threw him on the remnants of fire with the help of 3-4 other persons. In this way, the complicity of the appellant cannot be denied.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the dying declaration of the deceased, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 25.09.2023 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Mohanlal involved in Case Crime No.379 of 2023, under Sections 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which

¶19

he is suspected

¶20

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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 T.S.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohanlal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal 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

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijaypal vs State of U.P. and Another

Mantu @ Apradhi vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Singh @ Dablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Sachin and Another vs State of U.P. and Another