Allowed

Kamal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2018CRLA/2225/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that in a criminal appeal regarding bail rejection under IPC and SC/ST Act charges, the appellant made out a prima facie case for bail considering his age and lack of criminal history, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal allowed; Impugned order dated 19.3.2018 setting aside bail rejected; Appellant granted release on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Kamal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2225 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Kamal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav on behalf of complainant is taken on record. Affidavit of compliance and counter affidavit filed today are also taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 19.3.2018 passed by Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Etah in Bail Application No. 183 of 2018(Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2017 under Section 147,148, 149, 308, 323, 336, 313, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mirhachi, District Etah whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that FIR was lodged against 12 accused namely, Yogendra Singh, Kamal Singh, Omvir, Satyavir, Manpal, Ravindra, Ratendra, Sunil, Sukhpal, Sukhvir, Santosh and Chhotey Lal alleging that on 2.1.2018 at 8 A.M. Satyavir assaulted Kalicharan with sickle; Ravindra assaulted Jalebi Sree with 'Farsa'; Santosh assaulted Amod with stick (lathi); Omvir assaulted Naresh with lathi; and Sunil, Manpal and Kamal Singh assaulted Manju with kicks and fists. Injuries received by all injured except Manju are simple in nature. Injured Manju specifically stated in her statement that Kamal Singh and Manpal assaulted her and in that incident she lost her unborn child of three months.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is 65 years old and is languishing in jail since 4.1.2018(more than seven months) having no criminal history. In FIR three persons namely Sunil, Manpal and Kamal Singh have been attributed to cause injury to Manju but according to statement of Manju Malpal and Kamal Singh assaulted Manju. General role has been assigned to the appellant. It is not clear who is responsible for abortion of Manju. There is no independent witness. If the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

¶10

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

¶11

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence,age of appellant, 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 19.3.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant Kamal Singh 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 8.8.2018 P.P.

¶20

. .

¶21

Court No. - 41

¶22

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2225 of 2018

¶23

Appellant :- Kamal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶24

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶25

In compliance of order dated 26.7.2018 explanation of Lalit Mohan, Review Officer, Sri S.S. Gogi(Review Officer) forwarded by Sri K.S.Kushwaha, S.O.(Crl. Appeal B) is on record. They stated in the explanation that due to heavy workload and shortage of officials, they could not comply with the order dated 25.4.2017 within time.

¶26

Explanation given by erring officials given in the explanation are not satisfactory. This Court finds this type of negligence in several files by the office. They are directed to take care in future. Order be informed accordingly.

¶27

Order Date :- 8.8.2018 P.P.

Kamal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Rizwan Vs State of Up

Abdul Majid Vs Ram Dhani

Chhotey Lal Vs State

Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brajraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another