Dismissed

Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024CRLA/9976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of a second regular bail application in an SC/ST Act case involving assault with serious injuries including two fractures. The court found the offence serious, the injured had named the accused, and medical-ocular discrepancy could not be assessed pre-trial. The protective order relied on was misplaced. Appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:171107

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9976 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Swarn Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu- 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 12.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi, whereby his second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail, during pendency of trial in case crime no.112 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 325 IPC and Section 3(2)5Ka, 3(1)dha S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Pipri, District Kaushambi has been dismissed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused- appellant has argued that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 12.06.2024 on 5.15 p.m. and the F.I.R. has been registered on the next day at at 10.05 a.m. He submits that previously the prayer for bail by the accused- appellant was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2024, but thereafter the investigation in the case has been completed and the final report stands filed, whereupon the cognizance has been taken vide order dated 12.08.2024. Learned counsel refers to the injury report of the injured to point out that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular version, as the injuries suffered by the

¶8

injured have not been caused by any sharp edged weapon (axe). That apart, learned counsel has pointed out that other co- accused persons had approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. through Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.12862 of 2024 and while disposing of the said petition vide order dated 6.8.2024, this Court has protected the said accused persons against their arrest. Learned counsel presses for bail on the changed circumstances, as the Special Court, Kaushambi, while passing the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case carefully.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, as the offence is serious and the injured has specifically named the accused to be involved in the commission of a crime. A perusal of the injury report reveals that in all seven injuries were found on the person of the injured, and concededly, two fractures were also suffered by the victim. The argument relating to the discrepancy in the ocular version and the medical version cannot be appreciated at this stage, as the trial has not commenced and the prosecution is yet to discharge the onus.

¶10

Further, the reliance placed upon the order dated 6.8.2024 is also misplaced, as the order does not at all suggests that the writ petitioners/accused, who approached this Court have been protected against their arrest. A reading of the order dated 6th August, 2024, makes it clear that this Court while referring to the decision by Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that in the event of the arrest of the accused, the

¶11

Investigating Officer would record reasons.

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 would show that the trial court has rightly refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused- appellant, and the said order does not call for any interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.

¶13

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of this case, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Saurabh Tiwari Alias Bholu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam vs State of Up and Another

Veer Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Sharma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vidhu Shekhar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Vidhu Shekhar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Virendra Singh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others