Jitendra Singh Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5047

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5059 of 2024

Appellant :- Jitendra Singh Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Diwanshu Tiwari,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Jitendra Singh Patel with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 29.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj in Bail Application No. 7483 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bara, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶8

The prosecution has come forward with the case that the accused/appellant while driving his tractor pushed the hut of the deceased and when the deceased Chandrashekhar protested the accused-appellant immediately gave a fatal blow of lathi with intention to kill him in his abdomen. The injured was taken to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries. First Information Report was lodged and the investigation started. The postmortem was also performed by Dr. C.P. Srivastava at Motilal Nehru Hospital and it was found that the cause of death was hemorrhage shock due to one antemortem injury, an abraded contusion 7cm x 0.5 cm longitudinal on the left lateral wall of chest (lower side) up to abdomen wall causing the spleen ruptured.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there was no intention to kill the deceased on the part of the appellant and in a spur of moment, he gave a blow of lathi in the abdomen of the deceased. It is further submitted that the appellant did not try to give any further blow to the deceased and no blow was made on the head or other sensitive party of the body of the deceased. It is also submitted that if the prosecution case is taken as a true story even then the case does

¶10

not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 I.P.C. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute an offence under S.C./S.T. Act are also not made in this case as there is no evidence on record that the appellant knew the fact that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. community. It is also submitted that whole story of recovery of a danda from the possession of the accusedappellant is false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is next submitted that the learned Special Judge without proper scrutinizing and analysing the evidence on record, rejected the bail application of the appellant who is languishing in jail since 01.09.2023 and now he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are two eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have narrated the whole incident in the same tone. The fatal blow has been made by the present accused-appellant on the abdomen of the deceased with a lathi and he is not entitled for bail in this matter. Further, lathi (danda) used in the alleged incident has been recovered from the possession of the present accused-appellant, therefore, the present accused-appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶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 particularly, keeping in view the nature of the offence, also considering that the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R and the statements of the eye witnesses of this case and also taken into consideration the fact that only a single blow has been made by the present accused-appellant and no further assault was made by him, and considering the incarceration period of the accused-appellant and that the accused-appellant having no criminal antecedents to his credit, I am inclined to grant bail to the accused-appellant. The court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant Jitendra Singh Patel involved in Case Crime No.109 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. read with Section

¶16

3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 PS

¶24

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Singh Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh Patel 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

Similar cases

Punam Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwana Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Daadu @ Chelaram vs State of Up

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another