Ram Lakhan & 3 Others vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2019 Latest Caselaw 6039 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 530 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Lakhan & 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dhananjai Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 4.2.2019 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, in bail application No.21 of 2019, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr PC, arising out of Crime No.384 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302, 323, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (dha) and 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.

As per prosecution case, on 26.11.2018, FIR was lodged by Ravi Kishore alleging in it that on 25.11.2018 at about 7.00 PM accused persons named in the FIR have caused injuries to several persons as a result of which deceased Madhu Rani expired whereas Vimal Kumar, Devendra, Harihar, Harinam, Indrapal, Lavkush, Km. Meera and Poonam have suffered injuries.

Counsel for the appellants submits that:-

(i) the main accused Guddu is said to have caused injury on Madhu Rani resulting her death.

(ii) against the appellants only general allegations have been levelled.

(iii) most of the injured, who were allegedly assaulted by the accused appellants, have sustained simple injuries and therefore offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out.

(iv) provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act are not attracted, as there is no allegation by the prosecution that the incident occurred because the complainant party was of a particular caste.

On the other hand, opposing the submissions advance by learned counsel for the appellants, it has been argued by State Counsel that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the bail application filed by the appellants. He further submits that even assuming that the main role has been assigned to Guddu for committing murder of Madhu Rani, presence of all the accused persons have been duly proved by the witnesses. He submits that in the FIR also, specific allegations have been made against the appellants and at this stage, they are not entitled for the bail.

Considering the fact that in the FIR all the accused persons have been named and further considering the fact that there are number of injured persons who have also made allegations against the appellants, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellants on bail.

The appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

nethra