Waseem and another v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for appellants, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Akela, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.1773 of 2024 (Waseem and another Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.315 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3),115(2), 118(2),126(2) B.N.S. and 3(1)(Dha), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District-Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants, namely, Waseem and Arman have falsely been implicated in this case. The common role of beating by lathi, danda, kicks and fists is against the appellants and the banka has been shown with Shariff. He further submits that there is a cross case and injuries were suffered by both the sides, therefore, the FIR No.406 of 2024 has been lodged from the side of the accused-appellants also as serious injuries were suffered by the mother of appellant no.1-Waseem. He also submits that the injuries have been shown to have been suffered by five persons, namely, Neeraj Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Priya, Raj Kumari and Praveen. The nature of injuries is simple except one injury of Raj Kumari, in regard to whom no opinion has been given by the doctor. However, the said injury may be of banka. He further submits that there is criminal history of two cases against the appellant no.1-Waseem and both the cases are of minor offences, in which he is on bail. So far as appellant no.2-Arman is concerned, he has no criminal history.

4. He further submits that in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded in the trial also, they have only exacerated the averments of the FIR and there is nothing on account of which the appellants may be convicted under Section 109 BNS. The appellants are in jail sine 25.07.2024. He further submits that the caste related remarks cannot be said to be uttered in public view but without considering the same, the bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected by the court below which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellants are law abiding and peace loving citizens and in case facility of bail is granted, they will not misuse the liberty granted by this court and undertake to cooperate the trial court in speedy disposal of trial. Thus, the appellants are entitled for bail.

5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. However he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6 submits that respondent no.2 is the husband of Gram Pradhan and on account of improvement of the road being made by Gram Pradhan, the accuseds had beaten the respondents. He further submits that the respondents have suffered injuries. However, he could not dispute that except one injury sustained by Raj Kumari, all other injuries suffered by the injureds are simple in nature. He also could not contradict that the caste related remarks can be said to be in public view at this stage. He further submits that the appellant no.1 has criminal history of two cases. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record, it is apparent that there are cross FIR's from both the sides and the mother of appellant no.1 has also suffered serious injuries, whereas in the present case the injuries to the injured persons are simple in nature except to one Raj Kumari, which could have been of banka and that there is no criminal history of appellant no.2 and the appellant no.1 has been enlarged on bail in the two cases against him and caste related remarks cannot be said to be in full public view at this stage but the learned court below has passed the impugned order without considering the same, therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the case for bail of the appellants is made out.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated05.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellants- Waseem and Arman, involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above for each of them and two sureties each in the like amount for each of them to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for appellants, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Anil Kumar Akela, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No.1773 of 2024 (Waseem and another Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.315 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3),115(2), 118(2),126(2) B.N.S. and 3(1)(Dha), 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Atrauli, District-Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants, namely, Waseem and Arman have falsely been implicated in this case. The common role of beating by lathi, danda, kicks and fists is against the appellants and the banka has been shown with Shariff. He further submits that there is a cross case and injuries were suffered by both the sides, therefore, the FIR No.406 of 2024 has been lodged from the side of the accused-appellants also as serious injuries were suffered by the mother of appellant no.1-Waseem. He also submits that the injuries have been shown to have been suffered by five persons, namely, Neeraj Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Priya, Raj Kumari and Praveen. The nature of injuries is simple except one injury of Raj Kumari, in regard to whom no opinion has been given by the doctor. However, the said injury may be of banka. He further submits that there is criminal history of two cases against the appellant no.1-Waseem and both the cases are of minor offences, in which he is on bail. So far as appellant no.2-Arman is concerned, he has no criminal history.

4. He further submits that in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded in the trial also, they have only exacerated the averments of the FIR and there is nothing on account of which the appellants may be convicted under Section 109 BNS. The appellants are in jail sine 25.07.2024. He further submits that the caste related remarks cannot be said to be uttered in public view but without considering the same, the bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected by the court below which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellants are law abiding and peace loving citizens and in case facility of bail is granted, they will not misuse the liberty granted by this court and undertake to cooperate the trial court in speedy disposal of trial. Thus, the appellants are entitled for bail.

5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. However he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 6 submits that respondent no.2 is the husband of Gram Pradhan and on account of improvement of the road being made by Gram Pradhan, the accuseds had beaten the respondents. He further submits that the respondents have suffered injuries. However, he could not dispute that except one injury sustained by Raj Kumari, all other injuries suffered by the injureds are simple in nature. He also could not contradict that the caste related remarks can be said to be in public view at this stage. He further submits that the appellant no.1 has criminal history of two cases. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record, it is apparent that there are cross FIR's from both the sides and the mother of appellant no.1 has also suffered serious injuries, whereas in the present case the injuries to the injured persons are simple in nature except to one Raj Kumari, which could have been of banka and that there is no criminal history of appellant no.2 and the appellant no.1 has been enlarged on bail in the two cases against him and caste related remarks cannot be said to be in full public view at this stage but the learned court below has passed the impugned order without considering the same, therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the case for bail of the appellants is made out.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated05.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellants- Waseem and Arman, involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above for each of them and two sureties each in the like amount for each of them to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Renu/- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench