✦ Court unavailable · 17 Oct 2024

Vishal & Anr. v. State of U.P & Anr.

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

Judgment

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 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 impugned order dated 11.7.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015), Saharanpur in Bail Application No. 1378 of 2024, Special Session Trial No.467 of 2024, Case Crime No. 183 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC and 3 (2)(Va) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the alleged incident took place during a marriage ceremony, however the matter was compromised at the Police Station but while returning home, the appellants and the first informant again started a scuffle. Accordingly cross FIRs were lodged by both the parties. It has been further submitted that the first informant was the aggressor in the aforesaid scuffle and several persons had received injuries. There are general allegation against the appellant and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants. As per medico legal reports, the injuries are simple in nature except fracture at parietal bone of Aman. The learned 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. Appellants are in jail since 11.7.2024, having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. On the other hand, learned learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. 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. 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, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The learned 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside. Let the appellants Vishal and Harshit involved in Crime Case No.183 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC and 3 (2)(Va) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur 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.

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

#2. The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

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

#4. 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.

#5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Monika

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Amendment Act, 2015; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 325, 504.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on eCourts case status (search case no. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7373 of 2024). ← Search more judgments