RAM ADHAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-334
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on July 11,2019

RAM ADHAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard Sri Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rs.K Pathak, learned counsel for the State and Sri Manoj Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant.
(2.)As these two appeals arise out of a common order dated 7.6.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3786/2019, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 439 of CrPC, arising out of Crime No.125/2011 (ST No.775/2011) under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 21 (1) IV of Excavation Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station: Chinhat, District Lucknow, they are being disposed of by this common order.
(3.)As per initial prosecution case, on 11.4.2011, FIR was lodged by Ganesh Prasad, father of deceased Sandeep, alleging in it that on the previous date, i.e. 10.4.2011, the appellants ran over a Dumper on Sandeep, resulting his death. On the same day, i.e. 11.4.2011, another FIR was lodged by Harikesh, mentioning therein that one Dumper, while being reversed, dashed his brother Amresh and one unknown person, resulting their death. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed only against one Vijay Pal under Section 304 of IPC, Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and Section 21 (1) IV of Mines and Minerals Act. In the said trial, Vijay Pal was granted bail by this Court. However, during pendency of trial, an application was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr PC, praying that as name of the appellants also figured in the statements of Ganesh Prasad and Prem Prakash, therefore, both the appellants be joined as accused. The said application was granted in favour of the prosecution which was challenged by the appellants before this Court and initially, an interim order was passed in their favour. On 1.5.2019, the petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed by this Court granting liberty to them to appear/surrender before the Court below within fifteen days and the Court below was directed to consider and decide their bail applications favourably. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, the appellants preferred an application before the Sessions Court, but by the impugned order, the same has been rejected.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.