Allowed

Lalji Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2018CRLA/5382/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenging a bail rejection order under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was allowed. The High Court held that the lower court erred in rejecting bail and set aside the impugned order, granting bail to the appellant with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant Lalji Rajbhar on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Lalji Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5382 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Lalji Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Babu Lal Ram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Jaunpur.

¶6

Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copies of lower Court bail record ) and the documents (instruction and case diary) available with the learned A.G.A. are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is next contended that F.I.R. against the appellant has been lodge only on the basis of suspicion. It is next contended that there is only last seen evidence and statement of Nanhey Lal against the appellant. It is next contended that allegation against the appellant/accused is that Amit, son of the accused/appellant has some relationship with the deceased. It is next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 14.07.2018 and he has no previous criminal antecedents. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegally warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. From the evidence available on record, a primafacie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶13

Let the appellant Lalji Rajbhar involved in Case Crime No. 124 of 2018, under Sections 366/120-B, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3 (2) 5 of the S.C/S.T. Act, PS- Kerakat, District - Jaunpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶15

The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.10.2018 A. Pt. Singh

Lalji Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalji Rajbhar 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

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Faizal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Asraf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Jayant Kumar Sircar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chanchal and 4 others Vs State of U.P. and another