Allowed

Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal v. State of U.P. ANOther

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024CRLA/6758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail appeal against the rejection of bail under SC/ST Act and IPC. The court found the appellant's role vague, the first informant's account inconsistent, and no CDR link, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence and to appear in court.

Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal vs State of U.P. ANOther — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131106

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6758 of 2024 Appellant :- Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Rai,Sanjay Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559.

¶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 06.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316, 120B I.P.C., and Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2) & 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sandipanghat, District-Kaushambi. The applicantappellant is in jail since 21.09.2023.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 06.01.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Dinesh Rai,

¶10

learned counsel and Shri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsels behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

As per the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., the incident occurred on 15.09.2023 at 05:30 AM wherein three persons were killed by the accused. At the time of the incident the first informant claims that he was in the house in Chhabilawa and reached the spot after getting knowledge of the incident. He found that a large number of police personnel were already present at the site.

¶12

The F.I.R. assigns a vague and a general role to the applicant in the assault.

¶13

The first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was at his sister's house and had to ease himself in the fields at the relevant point in time. After attending nature call while returning home at 03:30 AM he witnessed the the incident.

¶14

The first informant assigns a vague and general role to the applicant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶15

The statement of the first informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. identifies Amar Singh, Amit Singh, Anoop Singh and Yadvendra @ Guddu as the principal offenders who discharged their firearms. The applicant has not been assigned any overt role in the incident in the said

¶16

statement.

¶17

Material contradictions in the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., statements of the first informant under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶18

The applicant has been nominated only at the instigation of inimical parties in the village.

¶19

The CDR does not link the applicant with the offence of criminal conspiracy, inasmuch as, they do not depict the content of conversation.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to other co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 06.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3402 of 2024.

¶21

The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶22

In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application.

¶23

The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶24

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

¶25

Let the appellant- Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶29

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.8.2024/Dhananjai

¶31

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal v. State of U.P. ANOther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal v. State of U.P. ANOther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhir Buddhi Raja vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jareena vs Daman Preet Arora, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Distt. Faizabad / Ayodhya

Hardesh vs State of Up and Another

Raju and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shri Kamal Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, New Delhi and 2 Others