This appeal challenged the district judge's refusal of bail in a case involving alleged celebratory firing. The High Court held that despite the informant's retracted statement, written allegations remained, and refused to grant bail.
The prayer for bail was rejected; the appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1509 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2021 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Chhotan Yadav, S/o Late Kanhai Yadav, R/o village- Parisiya, P.S.Navinagar, District- Aurangabad
... ... Appellant/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP For the informant : Mrs. Mukul Kumari, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-09-2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2.
Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST), Aurangabad in connection with Nabinagar P.S. Case No. 115 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1509 of 2022 dt.29-09-2022 2/3
2021, registered for the alleged offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 (2) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.
As per the prosecution case, during the tilak ceremony of the son of the informant the appellant fired from his pistol and the shot hit the wife of the nephew of the informant in her head and she died on her way to hospital.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of celebratory firing and no one has seen who actually fired as many persons were firing in the air. The appellant has been falsely implicated by the informant but later on the informant retracted his statement and filed an application before the learned trial court that at the behest of others he has named the appellant and the appellant has nothing to do with the occurrence. There would be no application of provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act in this case. The appellant is in custody since 01.02.2022 and charge-sheet has been submitted.
Learned Spl.PP opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/respondent no. 2 submits that the matter has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1509 of 2022 dt.29-09-2022 3/3
compromised and a petition has been filed on behalf of the informant before the learned trial court stating that the appellant was not involved in the occurrence.
Perused the records.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that specific allegation has been made against this appellant by the informant in his written report and, thereafter, the informant and other witnesses in the case diary and notwithstanding the retracted statement of the informant before the learned trial court which is not in the form of deposition, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
| AFR/NAFR | N.A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 01.10.2022 |
| Transmission Date | 01.10.2022 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant charged under sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC in a case of celebratory firing alleged to have resulted in death.
Whether the retraction of the informant's statement invalidates the charges against the appellant warranting bail.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Chhotan Yadav
The State of Bihar
Dhasrath Vishawkarma
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
