Allowed

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2018CRLA/579/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail based on the gravity of allegations, period of custody, and lack of specific role or incriminating evidence. The appellant was released on bail with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

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

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 579 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anjani Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raju Kanaujia

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed today by Sri I. P. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by learned Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Case Crime No.1484 of 2017, under Section 323, 302, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da) of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj whereby bail application was rejected.

¶7

According to prosecution case, the FIR was lodged on 13.11.2017 against the appellant-Mange alias Sanjeev Kumar Savita and two others, namely, Sher Singh and Vinod Yadav alleging therin that on 12.11.2017 at about 11:30 pm when the brother of informant went for to see Ramleela then appellant and two others came there and quarrelled with him and in between one accused-Sher Singh made fire upon his brother-Dharam Singh and the shot was hit on left side of his chest. The deceased taken to the hospital where he was declared died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that

¶9

the co-accused, Vinod Yadav, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.02.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.364 of 2018, as such, the appellant is also entitled for bail as there is no specific role has been assigned by the appellant against the deceased; no any incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the appellant; the appellant/applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity; there is no legal evidence against the applicant; general allegation has been assigned against the appellant; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 17.11.2017 (more than six months); having no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that there is no criminal history against the appellant and submits that appeal has to be dismissed.

¶11

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 06.01.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant/applicant Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita be released on bail involved in Case Crime No.1484 of 2017, under Section 323, 302, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da) of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable

¶13

sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The appellant/applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The appellant/applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The appellant/applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The appellant/applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the appellant/applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which appellant/applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The appellant/applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant 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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Nitin Verma

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita 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

manoj Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kaliyan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sunil Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.