Allowed

Azad Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019CRLA/3226/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the bail application filed by the appellant was wrongly rejected by the court below. Considering the appellant's peripheral role as a hatcher of the conspiracy compared to co-accused who caused injury, the appeal was allowed and the bail application granted with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3226 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Azad Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present criminal appeal has been filed U/s 14(A)(2) of S.C./S.T. Act against the order dated 14.3.2019, by which the bail application of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. Nil of 2019, (Azad Singh vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 2018, under Sections 307, 120-B IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Singaramau, District Jaunpur has been rejected vide order dated 14.3.2019.

¶7

In para 3 of the counter affidavit sworn by Shri Vishwa Nath, Circle Officer, Badlapuar, District Jaunpur, it has been stated that the notice has been given to the complainant regarding pendency of the instant criminal appeal and photocopy of the said notice has been annexed as annexure-1 of the counter affidavit. It is thus evident that the notice regarding pendency of the criminal appeal has been duly served upon opposite party no. 2 however none responds for him.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that as per allegations made in the FIR only role assigned to the appellant is that of hatching conspiracy, however, main role of causing injury by opening fire arm has been assigned to co-accused, Vivek Singh and Ashish Singh. At the time of incident, the appellant is said to be confined in jail in another case registered as case crime no. 81 of 2018 in which he has already been granted bail by his Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14442 of 2019 vide order dated 9.4.2019.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that on account of past enmity the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 15.9.2018. The criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit and in all cases the appellant has already been released on bail.Looking to the role of the appellant a case for bail is made out.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail

¶11

but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶12

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, I find that the court below has acted wrongly in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order dated 14.3.2019 is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed.

¶14

Let the appellant Azad Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2018, under Sections 307, 120-B IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Singaramau, District Jaunpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.9.2019 R

Azad Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad Singh 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

Shani Kumar Upadhyay @ Arpit Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Lalit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju @ Shahabuddin and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km.Vartika Harit Gaur @ Gudiya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vastiram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Naresh Chandra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another