Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3325 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Awatar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application
This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Ram Awatar Singh, in Case Crime No. 495 of 2019, under Sections- 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
The allegation in the F.I.R is that the applicant and the informant are residing in common locality. On 24.12.2019, at about 9 a.m. when he was in his house, the applicant and other co-accused entered into his house and abused him by caste related abuses. He was beaten mercilessly by danda by co- accused, Dilip Singh, by bricks by the applicant and co- accused, Ram Autar Singh, tried to poke danda in his eyes. Co- accused Shivpal Singh, brother of applicant and others tried to kill him and his teeth was broken and injuries were caused to his lips and mouth.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2020 AIR (SC) 5584 wherein the Apex Court has held that where offensive remark is made against the informant inside a building, then it would not be offence covered u/s 3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. Act wherein intentional insult or intimidation of a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view is provided as an offence. He has submitted that the phrase "in any place within public view" has also been employed in Section 3(1)(s) of S.C/S.T. Act. Therefore, the offence alleged would not be made out once the implication is also u/s 452 I.P.C. Regarding the implication for offence u/s 325 I.P.C., nothing has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant. The injury report of the injured must have been made part of the case diary but the Court does not finds the same on record of this bail application. However, from Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, x-ray report dated 26.12.2019 has been annexed which shows fracture of crown of left lateral incisor tooth. In the F.I.R, there is such an allegation against all the accused persons.
Even if the offence u/s 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act is not found proved against applicant, other offences alleged stand proved. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
This anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 KS