Allahabad High Court: While expressing that “Caste system in our society is deeply rooted, we boast ourselves as educated society, but we live our lives with double standards” Rahul Chaturvedi, J., granted bail to an accused of cold-blooded murder in an alleged honour killing case.

A criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was filed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge arising out of a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.


Informant’s younger brother was Gram Panchayat Adhikari who belonged to the scheduled caste community. During his training period, he had developed some amount of intimacy with his course-mate. Both of them performed registered marriage and started residing as husband and wife.

The above-said marriage raised eyebrows of all family members of the girl, and they all got infuriated and started waiting for the time to eliminate the deceased. After hatching conspiracy in July 2021, the deceased was ambushed by two motorcycle riders and was assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon and making his uncle who accompanied whim seriously injured.

Informant alleged that applicants on account of their previous enmity had actively participated in the said offence and thus facilitated them to commit the said cold-blooded, day light murder.

Analysis and Discussion

Caste system in our society is deep rooted, we boast ourselves as educated society, but we live our lives with double standards. Even after 75 years of Independence we are not able to get out with this social menace. This is pitiable and tragic. It is the moral duty of those sane person, who are well-off, to protect the under-privileged and downtrodden, so that they feel themselves safe, secure and comfortable. Simultaneously, the other group also feel that they are the integral and inseparable part of the society, and it is in the larger interest of the country and high time for the introspection for everyone to give serious thought over the matter.

High Court while expressing the above, stated that it is mind-boggling that the informant’s counsel complained that the widow of the deceased and his other family members were at sun and wanted to have safe shelter.

Bench prima facie found the submission of appellant’s counsel appealing and convincing with regard to the applicant being rank outsiders and having no concern whatsoever in the commission of an offence. Neither from applicant nor his pointing out had recovered any incriminating material.

The Court directed that S.S.P. Gorakhpur would provide necessary security to the family members of the deceased and thereafter have periodical assessment deploy the requisite security during the trial and take stringent action against every person who wants to the law in his hands.

Taking into consideration the above, Bench opined that the appellant made out a case for bail.

Following were the bail conditions:

  1. Appellant would fully cooperate in the conclusion of trial within 1 year and any tampering or willing tactics on the part of the appellant to delay the trial would warrant the automatic cancellation of bail.
  2. Appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed or evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of the said 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.
  3. 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 229-A IPC.
  4. In case the appellant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, may be issued and if appellant fails 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 under Section 174-A IPC.
  5. Appellant shall remain present in-person before the trial court on dates fixed for:

(i) opening of the case

(ii) framing of charge and

(iii)recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant was 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.

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Session Judge, Gorakhpur was set aside. [Sanni Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 44, decided on 20-1-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

Counsel for Appellant: – Manish Gupta, Vinay Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: – G.A., Arvind Kumar, Rahul Chaudhary

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.