Allowed

Charanjit Thakur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025CRLA/11684/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against a bail rejection order. The Court found the lower order erroneous given the facts and circumstances, setting it aside and granting bail to the appellants subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail is set aside. Appellants to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each.

Charanjit Thakur and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3402

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11684 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Charanjit Thakur And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Sharma,Vijay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6286 of 2024 (Charanjit Thakur and Others vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra.

¶8

The main submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that in a trivial dispute amongst the children, the wife of the first informant went to the house of the accused-appellants to ventilate her grudge whereby the caste based abusive languages were hurled and was threatened. After the wife reached her home, the accused-appellants entered into her house and attacked her with lathi and danda. Smt. Rajjo Devi received grievous injury. During the scuffle, the son of first informant had also received injuries. The appellant did not intent to cause injury or intimidation. The main incident took place inside the house of the first informant. There is no criminal history against the appellant except the present case. The appellants are languishing in jail since 15.07.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants does not suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

From the perusal of records, it transpires that due to trivial dispute amongst children the marpeet took place.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 12.11.2024 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be setaside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellants Charanjit Thakur, Virendra Singh Thakur and Pavan Singh Thakur involved in Case Crime No. 251 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra 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.

¶15

The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶19

The appellants 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 SY

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Charanjit Thakur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Thakur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munni Devi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subhrat Kumar Agrahari vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Kumar Dwivedi vs Atul Mani Tiwari

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others