Allahabad High Court
Raju Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78002
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2880 of 2024
Appellant :- Raju Pal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhinav Shukla,Ram Shiromani Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ghanshyam Joshi,Pushpa Joshi
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant/opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
3. 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 bail rejection order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur in Case Crime No.08 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.
4. The prosecution story has come forward with the case that some bombs were kept in the field of the informant by present appellant and some unknown persons forcibly and when the husband of the informant who is the member of S.C./S.T. Community made a protest, he was bitterly beaten by the aforesaid accused persons. He was taken to hospital but succumbed to injury on 15.01.2024 and F.I.R. was lodged on 16.01.2024.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly and the incident is said to be happened on 07.01.2024 whereas the first information report was lodged on 16.01.2024 and there is no explanation at all on the part of prosecution for the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is next submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence. It is also submitted that as per the contents of the F.I.R., the deceased was taken to the District Hospital Mirzapur on 08.01.2024 whereas the paper prepared in the District Hospital, the date of admission in the hospital is mentioned as 10.01.2024 and this major contradiction has also not been clarified by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution has made a false story that the husband of the informant was died due to the injuries allegedly sustained by him in the incident but the document prepared in the hospital shows that it was a case of intestinal perforation and the main complaint of the victim was abdominal injury. It is next submitted that the death of the deceased occurred on 15.01.2024 but surprisingly no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O. and even no dying declaration was recorded. It is also submitted that his death has been caused due to shock and septicaemia as mentioned in the autopsy report. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 18.01.2024 and as such, he is entitled for bail and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer the present appeal and the bail application. It has been submitted that in the F.I.R. itself it has been mentioned that the deceased was bitterly beaten by the present appellant and other accused persons who sustained abdominal injury and his intestine were bitterly damaged. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report of the deceased, the same condition has been mentioned by the doctor. It is next submitted that during the course of his admission in the hospital, septicaemia might be developed to the deceased but this is a fact that after receiving serious injuries inflicted by the appellant and his associates, the deceased was taken to the hospital. It is further submitted that the injuries as described in the F.I.R. with the findings mentioned by the doctor in the post mortem report. It is also submitted that since the informant was busy in the treatment of his seriously injured husband, he could not lodged the F.I.R. in time. It is next submitted that the appellant was substantially responsible for the death of the husband of the poor lady and he is not entitled for any leniency by the court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have perused the judgment and the records of the lower court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the nature of accusation, role of appellant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that at this stage, there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant by the informant of this case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the appellant-applicant-Raju Pal on bail in the aforesaid case as the offence is very serious.
8. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024/Shivangi
