Allowed

Baba Sanatan Das v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018CRLA/1734/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order rejecting the appellant's bail application, releasing him on bail subject to specific conditions despite the gravity of the offences involving loitering, prison escape, assault, rape, and atrocities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.03.2018 rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties.

Baba Sanatan Das Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1734 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Baba Sanatan Das Shishya Late Brijmohan Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Mayank,Muni Raj Mehrotra,Shyam Singh,Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make necessary correction in bail application.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 21.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mathura in Bail Application No.747 of 2018 (Baba Sanatan Das Shishya Late Brijmohan Das vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Special Complaint Case No. 39 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 354, 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Govardhan, District Mathura whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶9

According to the prosecution case one Special Complaint Case No. 39 of 2017 was filed and vide order dated 16.9.2017 the appellant was summoned under Sections 452, 323, 354, 376 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the bail application was rejected vide order dated 21.3.2018, hence this appeal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.3.2018 (more than three and half months); having no criminal history; due to previous enmity the disputes between the complainant and appellant are going on in respect of property; story made by the complainant is unnatural and unbelievable; appellant is the 'Pujari' of the Temple; there is no legal evidence against the appellant; this is a complaint case in which the appellant was summoned without giving any notice or opportunity and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶12

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated

¶13

21.03.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Baba Sanatan Das Shishya Late Brijmohan Das involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

2.The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

3.The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

5.The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 OP

Baba Sanatan Das v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba Sanatan Das v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narpat and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.