This Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that further detention served no purpose and set aside the impugned order, granting regular bail to the appellant.
Impugned order dated 7.6.2024 set aside and appellant 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:152619
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6201 of 2024
Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhinav Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Ashok Kumar-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 7.6.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Sessions Trial No. 851 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 61 of 2022, under Sections 352, 323, 324, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Indergarh, District Kannauj has been rejected.
Learned counsel for appellant has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.
Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 3.3.2022, wherein the name of the person, who assaulted the complainant has not been mentioned. Learned counsel submits that as per the allegations, the brother of one Bangali caused injuries to the victim and in relation to it, the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Rajan, companion of the complainant to point out that subsequently, the offence punishable under SC/ST Act has been introduced and the
injuries suffered by the victim were also found to be simple. Learned counsel for appellant has produced the copy of the order dated 8.4.2024 to point out that earlier the trial court had extended the concession of interim regular bail to the accused-appellant, and after dismissal of his application on 7.6.2024, the appellant is confined in judicial custody. According to learned counsel, the Special Court, Kannauj has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing bail to the appellant. He prays that impugned order dated 7.6.2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on regular bail.
Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of complainantrespondent no.2.
The prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A., who has argued that in the initial version, the identity of the accused is not disclosed by the complainant, but in the subsequent statements, the complainant and his companion have clearly stated that accused-appellant had caused injuries to the complainant. Learned A.G.A. refers to the injury report dated 4.3.2022 (Annexure No.2) to point out that in all eight injuries were suffered by the victim, therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the Special Court, Kannauj has rightly refused bail to the accused-appellant. He prays that the appeal be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that earlier the concession of interim regular bail was granted to the accused-appellant vide order dated 8.4.2024 and the said concession was never misused by him. That apart, the charges setup by the prosecution would be tested during trial on the basis of the prosecution evidence, and the said onus is yet to be discharged by the prosecution, therefore,
further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose, who is confined in judicial custody after dismissal of his application i.e. on 7.6.2024. The charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands filed, but the trial in the case is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time to conclude. The material witnesses in the case are either the complainant, his companion 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 7.6.2024 would show that Special Court, Kannauj has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while refusing to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused, therefore, the impugned order dated 7.6.2024 is not sustainable, and it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellants.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 7.6.2024 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– Ashok Kumar 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 :- 19.9.2024 P.S.Parihar
Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be set aside.
Whether the appellant should be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Kumar
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
