Rajaram Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6548

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3584 of 2024

Appellant :- Rajaram Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Dubey,Govind Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Piyush Tripathi,Prashant Mishra,Varsha Pandey,Vinayak Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arpit Dwivedi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinayak Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record.

¶8

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 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in application no. 2963 of 2024 in case crime no. 138 of 2024, under Sections 105 B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he is innocent and has committed no offence. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2024 at about 12:30 'o' clock the deceased died of electrocution with the electric wire in which the current was flowing. It is further submitted that electric wire was not placed by the appellant around the field with the intention or knowledge to cause death of the deceased. It may be said to be negligent act of the appellant. The offence does not come to the purview of Section 105 B.N.S. It is also submitted that since act was not done by the appellant with the knowledge of committing death of the deceased belonging to the scheduled caste, therefore, section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act will also not be attracted. The trial court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 12.07.2024, having no criminal history. 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.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and contended that in this case the fact of electric current in the wire around the field was in his knowledge, therefore, he cannot be said to be innocent.

¶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 period of appellant remained in jail having no any criminal antecedent and without making any further comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 .

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellant Rajaram Maurya involved in Case Crime No. 138 of 2024, under Sections 105 B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶20

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 her 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 :- 30.1.2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajaram Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 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

Faiz Mohd. and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Pandey @ Shweta Pandey Thru. Her Father Ganesh Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Smt. Mamta Yadav Thru. Her Husband Beni Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Arv (Minor) Thru. His Father Himanshu Bharti Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 7 Others

Gangoo @ Ganga Ram and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P.