Allowed¶7

Raman v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025CRLA/11326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act; Allahabad High Court sets aside Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur bail rejection dated 17.10.2024; appellant Raman; assault on informant's wife with lathi, danda and balkati; no specific role of assault or weapon assigned; no criminal history; Case Crime No. 131 of 2022, Sections 308/325/323/452/504 IPC and 3(1) Da, Dha, 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, PS Nanauta, District Saharanpur; release on personal bond and two heavy sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant Raman to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to stated conditions. ¶7

Raman vs State of U.P and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail and whether the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur dated 17.10.2024 rejecting his bail application warrants interference by this Court.

¶2

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the Court held that the appellant has made out a case for bail; the trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application, and the impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The appellant Raman was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including that he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses, shall appear before the trial court on fixed dates, shall not commit a similar offence, and shall not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure; breach would entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.), allowing a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, set aside the order dated 17.10.2024 of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur rejecting bail in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4414 of 2024, and enlarged the appellant Raman to bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 (Sections 308, 325, 323, 452, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)(5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur). The Court held that, having regard to the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellant had made out a case for bail and the trial Court erred in rejecting it; notably, the State could not dispute that no specific role of assault or weapon had been assigned to the appellant. Release was ordered on a personal bond and two heavy sureties, with conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, absence from trial, commission of similar offences, and inducement of witnesses; breach permits the prosecution to seek cancellation before this Court.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1571

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11326 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Raman Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Raman with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4414 of 2024.

¶8

Four named accused persons including the present accused appellant along with other associates came to the house of the informant and made assault upon his wife, the injured, by the use of lathi, danda and balkati, she sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. As per FIR several persons made assault altogether upon the wife of the informant but as per medical report she has sustained only two injuries and that too are not dangerous to life. It is also submitted that no specific role of assault or weapon has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible on the point that when the wife of the informant was beaten by the accused persons they do not touch the informant at all. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The FIR of this case has been lodged very belatedly after 7 days of the occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right

¶10

perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 8.10.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 but however, he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that no specific role of assault or weapon has been assigned to the present appellant.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant - Raman involved in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, Dha and Section 3 (2)(5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nanauta, District- Saharanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the

¶19

offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raman v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pushpendra Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Kadir Alias Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Rai Alias Pramod Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem shankar Tiwari and 3 Ors. vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another