Allowed

Sanjay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC28 May 2019CRLA/3320/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by Sanjay and another challenging the rejection of their bail applications. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court order, and directed their release on bail based on parity with co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 4.4.2019 set aside. Appellants Sanjay and Vipin released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each.

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3320 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Sanjay And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Mahendra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit. It is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellants, challenging the order dated 4.4.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in Bail Application No. 1363 of 2019 (Sanjay Vs. State of U.P.) & Bail Application No.1364 of 2019 (Vipin vs. State of U.P.) in Criminal Case No. 76 of 2018 (State Vs. Vipin and others), arising out of Case Crime No.265 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the informant lodged the FIR with the allegations that on 12.02.2018 in the morning the informant Mahendra was sitting at his home and taking tea and his brother Bablu was taking bath at the hand pump outside the house; that Km. Sonam daughter of Bablu, his wife Smt. Suman were also doing household work near door; that suddenly the pradhan of his village namely Sant Singh along with three unknown persons came to the house of the informant and exhorted, to which three

¶9

unknown persons opened fire on his brother Bablu with weapons in their hand; that his brother after receiving fire arm injuries, fell down then and there; that the informant along with his sister-in-law, niece Sonam tried to catch hold of four accused but they have fled away threatening the informant and others. It has been further submitted that the name of accused Sanjay was not mentioned in the FIR but their names have come to light during the investigation in the statement of the coaccused Sant Singh and thus the appellants were assigned the role of conspirator. He has further submitted that the co-accused Atul who has assigned the role of assaulting has already been enlarged on bail, copy where of has been annexed on page 96 of the paper book.

¶10

It has been further contended that co-accused Sant Singh in Criminal Appeal No.2269 of 2018 and Brahma @ Raj Aryan in Criminal Appeal No.5232 of 2018 have already been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.10.2018 and 7.12.2018. Co-accused Jagbir in Criminal Appeal No. 2224 of 2019, co-accused Sumit in Criminal No.3146 of 2019 vide order dated 17.4.2019, 7.5.2019 have already been granted bail by this Court. Since the role reliable assigned to the accused/appellant as one of the conspirators. It is identical to as that of who also stands on the same footing, the accused/appellants are also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The appellant no.1 and 2 are in jail since 16.2.2018 and 30.3.2018. The criminal history of the applicants has been explained in paragraph no. 21 of the paper book.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶12

Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the

¶13

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 4.4.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, is hereby set aside

¶15

Let the appellant- Sanjay and Vipin be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of them in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Rk

Sanjay and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay and Anr. 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

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

Dhanraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunwar Pal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another