Allowed

Surya Kant v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 May 2019CRLA/1645/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1645 of 2019, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's refusal to grant bail. The court held that the appellant was a fit person for bail under Section 14(2) of the SC/ST Act, relying on the gravity of the charges and evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the order refusing bail was set aside; the appellant Surya Kant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

Surya Kant Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1645 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Surya Kant Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Monis Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

One Supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 filed today, are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amar Jeet Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge, Jaunpur in Case Crime No.196 of 2018, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He submitted that the incident was reported to the police after a delay of ten days. He submitted that co-accused Kamlesh Kumar Soni has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2019 vide order dated 29.04.2019 and the role of the present appellant is similar to the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail. He submitted that he has no criminal history to his credit and is in jail since 10.10.2018.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the aforementioned order is hereby set aside.

¶11

Let the appellants-applicants Surya Kant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2019

¶13

R./

Surya Kant v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Kant 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aasu @ Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Imran @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uma Shankar Singh Alias Uma Shankar Singh Thakur and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nitish Vs State of U.P. and Another