Dismissed

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2019CRLA/2455/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application. Upholding the lower court's decision, the Court held that given the gravity of the offence (murder under IPC 364) and independent witness support for the prosecution, the case was not a fit one for bail. The Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Appeal dismissed; Trial to be expedited.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2455 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Suraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Subodh Kumar,Udit Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Awadhesh Kumar Saxena, Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accuse and the learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

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 20.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No.287 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.0272 of 2017, under Sections 364 I.P.C. & 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, 2015, P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶7

As per prosecution version, the incident was reported by the father of the deceased, Mukesh Kumar Dohre with the allegation that her daughter was working at the resident of Gaurvendra Swaroop, resident of 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur and she was looking after the children of Gaurvendra Swaroop. It was further mentioned in the first information report that he was informed by Gaurvendra Swaroop that on 21.10.2017 Gayatri Devi had not come to the work after 5.00 p.m. and she is not in her quarter and when he came to Kanpur in search of her daughter he was informed that her daughter was seen with Suraj, who had disposed of her dead-body after murdering in river Ganga.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that the alleged deceased Gayatri Devi has not yet been traced out. He submitted that Gayatri Devi is a young lad and she might have gone somewhere else with someone else. He further submitted that the appellant is a law abiding citizen and is in jail since 29.10.2017.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A., for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Mukesh Kumar Dohre has supported the allegations levelled in the first information report and in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and two independent witnesses Sandhya and Reen, who were co-workers with Gayatri Devi. These two independent witnesses have supported the prosecution version and they had said in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that they have seen Suraj carrying away the deceased Gayatri Devi towards river Ganga and till date the deceased is not traceable.

¶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 and considering the fact the complainant and two indenpendent

¶11

witnesses have supported the prosecution version, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected .

¶13

The trial court is directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible as possible from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Accordingly, this Court find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and as such, this appeal also stands dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.5.2019

¶16

R./

Suraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

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

Jeeshan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Girish and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fijan Ahmad Vs State of Up and Another