Allowed

Roopak Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 May 2019CRLA/2692/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a Single Judge allowed the appellant to be released on bail in a case involving alleged murder and conspiracy, setting aside the lower court's refusal.

What did the court decide?

Release of the appellant, Roopak Rai, on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Roopak Rai Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2692 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Roopak Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of appellant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the Incharge/Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Case Crime no. 545 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, district-Kushi Nagar, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initially an FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased against eight persons with the allegations that the deceased after closing his shop was going to his house along with his nephew on his Moped. When they reached near C.M.O. office they were intercepted by the accused persons and on the exhortation of Shambhu Rai, accused Kunwar Upadhyay had murdered the deceased Jairam Prasad Gaud. This incident was witnessed by Ambuj, nephew of the deceased. Later on during investigation all the accused persons were exonerated by the police and other new persons have been roped in the present case and the present accused Roopak Rai was also made an accused of hatching conspiracy to murder the deceased. He next submitted that at the time of incident the present accused was in jail and the other coaccused with whom the present appellant is said to have hatched criminal conspiracy, have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 8.5.2019, 10.5.2019 and 22.5.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2879 of 2019, 2263 of 2019 and 3209 of 2019, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit. He lastly submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 16.11.2017, is

¶10

entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial, if he released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is having criminal history of several other cases. However, he has not disputed the fact that initially some persons were named in the FIR and there was eye witness account of the incident and there is dying declaration of the deceased, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

In reply, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has explained the criminal history in

¶13

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly.

¶14

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 2.3.2019 passed by the Incharge/Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the applicant-appellant, Roopak Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.5.2019 Faridul

Roopak Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopak Rai v. State of U.P.

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

Sonu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jagrani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir Langda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu Pal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku Yadav and 03 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Satyendra @ Golu Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another