The High Court allowed a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of regular bail. It held that the lower court failed to exercise its discretion and set aside the appeal order, releasing the appellant on bail.
The impugned order dated 24.4.2024 was set aside and the appellant was released on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds.
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:110659
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5133 of 2024
Appellant :- Bhoora Urf Nasim Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Bhoora Urf Nasim-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 24.4.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Muzaffar Nagar, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 36 of 2024, under Sections 304, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffar Nagar has been rejected.
The above F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of a complaint given by informant Shiv Kumar, who alleged that on 28.03.2024, his sons namely, Ankul, Shekher alongwith co-villagers Vikas @ Kala, Nitin, Saurabh, Tinku and Sant Kumar had gone for labour work with Bhoora @ Nasim (appellant) on his tractor. On 29.03.2024, the boys were coming on the said tractor, which was overloaded with peels of sugarcane and appellant had deliberately made complainant's son Ankul and Shekher sit on the loaded material whereas others were sitting on the tractor, and by ignoring the safety, Bhoora drove the tractor underneath the live electricity wire. Complainant's son namely, Ankul and Shekher came in
contact with live electricity wire and died, whereas Nitin, Vikas, Saurabh suffered injuries. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In pursuance to the notice issued on 22.5.2024, office has reported that service report is still awaited, but a perusal of the counter affidavit dated 18.6.2024, filed on behlaf of Mahesh Chandra, Circle Officer, District Muzzafar Nagar, it is categorically stated that complainant-respondent no.2 was intimated about the filing of the appeal on 28.5.2024.
In view of this, the respondent no.2 stands effectively served, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
Learned counsel for appellant has argued that according to the prosecution, the appellant was driving the tractor whereas the victims were sitting on top of the peels of sugarcane loaded in the trolley, and two persons died of electrocution, whereas others suffered injuries. Learned counsel submits that case of the prosecution does not make out a case of homicidal death, and even if, it is assumed to be negligence, it would be an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that alleged occurrence took place at 5:30 a.m. and even the victims were negligent, who did not notice the live electricity wire resulting in the mishap, therefore, in this background, the appellant deserves the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Nitin recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted that it
seems extremely strange that this witness suffered injuries while sleeping and did not notice the occurrence. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Special Court, Muzzafar Nagar has not carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case while rejecting his bail application. He prays that impugned order dated 24.4.2024 be set aside and the application by appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. be allowed.
The prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A., who has argued that appellant is the driver of the tractor, therefore, he should have been careful enough to notice the live electricity wire and he failed to give an alert to the persons sitting on the material loaded in the tractor, thereby resulting in death of two persons. According to learned A.G.A., he is not aware about the present status of the investigation, if, the same has been completed or not. Learned A.G.A. has argued that order dated 24.4.2024 passed by Special Court, Muzzafar Nagar is based upon correct appreciation of material on record, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that appellant is in custody since his arrest on 1.4.2024 and the trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude, which is yet to commence. Considering the nature of the offences and the manner of occurrence, this Court finds that appellant deserves the concession of regular bail as his further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. The material witnesses in the case are either the complainant, injured or the police officials and at present, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. A perusal of the impugned order dated 24.4.2024 passed
by Special Court, Muzzafar Nagar would show that trial court has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it, in accordance with law, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.4.2024 is not sustainable, and it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 24.4.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Bhoora Urf Nasim be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2024 P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Court erred in rejecting the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Whether the appellant deserves regular bail considering the nature of the offences and material witnesses.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhoora Urf Nasim
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
