The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, upholding the Special Court's decision to deny bail due to the serious nature of offences and injury to victims.
Appeal dismissed; prayer to keep appeal pending for six months rejected.
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:112653
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5807 of 2024
Appellant :- Firoj And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Basti, whereby their application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha), 3(2)5, 3(2)(5A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti has been rejected.
The First Information Report was registered on the basis of complaint by Sukhram who alleged that he belongs to scheduled caste and resides at villageDudhraksh, police station- Rudhauli, district Basti. On 5th March, 2024 at around 8.00-9.00 p.m. his covillagers Irshad s/o Yunus, Haider s/o Mohd. Yunus, Firoz s/o Mohd. Umer, Mobin s/o Mohd. Hussain, Badrunissha w/o Mohd. Yunus, Mohd. Yunus s/o Aladin, Kamrunissha d/o Manzoor Ali armed with lathi , danda ,
rod, ganasha , tanguli and knifes etc., in connivance with each other on the issue of parking of tractor attacked him. When his nephew Nandu s/o Sant Ram, daughters Seema and Sarita along with his another nephew Baiju s/o Ramdasrath came to rescue him, the assailants gave them severe beatings and also abused them in the name of their castes. Many people came to the house of the complainant to rescue him, who had suffered head injuries and turned unconscious. The complainant's nephew Nandu also turned unconscious as a result of injuries caused by the assailants, and with the help of the co- villagers, injured were taken to hospital where they were given treatment. On these broad allegations, the first information report was registered against the appellants for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and no specific injury suffered by the victim has been attributed to them. He submits that the injuries suffered by Seema, Sarita and Baiju are simple in nature, and the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. has been allegedly incorporated in the first information report, for causing injuries to the complainant and his nephew Nandu. He
submits that the investigation of the case is complete as the final report stands filed on 26.5.2024, therefore, the further detention of the appellants behind the bars would not be necessary. According to the learned counsel, the Special Court, Basti has not carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellants, therefore, the said order be set aside and the appellants be released on regular bail.
The prayer is opposed by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned State Counsel, who have argued that in the alleged occurrence, Nandu, 13 years old boy lost his five teeth of the upper denture and the complainant also suffered head injury. They have argued that the complainant and the injured persons have specifically named the assailants in the first information report and in their statements recorded during investigation, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.5.2024 passed by Special Court (S.C./S.T.) Act, Basti has been rightly passed by the Special Court, Basti and no interference is warranted.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the complainant, the assailants who are his neighbours used to park their tractor in the street and in this regard, he requested them on number of occasions
not to park the tractor in his field and on this issue, on 5th March, 2024, the neighbours attacked him and his family members, by trespassing in his house.
A perusal of the paper book would reveal that the injury reports of Sukhram and Nandu are on record as Annexure No.2. Perusal of the medico legal report of complainant reveals that he suffered lacerated wound on his left temporal region besides, abrasions on the other parts of his body. Similarily, X-ray report of injured Nandu (minor) shows that on his examination on 28.3.2024, he was advised for X-ray and the said report further gives the detail of the teeth found missing from the denture, and as per the report few sockets are yet to heal.
Further, this Court finds that the appellants were arrested on 3.5.2024 and the trial in the case is yet to commence, therefore, at this stage, considering the seriousness of the offences as well as the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant and his nephew, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for granting the concession of regular bail to the appellants, as the material witnesses are yet to be examined.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Basti would show that the Special Court, Basti has given valid reasons while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused. The order does not suffer from
any illegality, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
At this stage, Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants insists that the appeal be not dismissed and be kept pending. He prays that the appeal be adjourned for a period of six months, for again considering the appellants plea for bail.
Apparently, the above prayer is unreasonable and misplaced, therefore, the same is also rejected.
Order Date :- 15.7.2024
Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to appellants accused under the SC/ST Act, considering the seriousness of the offences and missing material witnesses.
Whether the impugned order denying bail by the Special Court is liable to be set aside on appeal.
Whether the prayer to keep the bail appeal pending for six months is meritorious.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Firoj and Another
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
Raj Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
