Allowed

Santosh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2019CRLA/4237/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge had rejected a bail application in a case involving offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court found the lower court acted wrongly in the face of no injury to the victim and parity with co-accused granted bail. The bail order was set-aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail order dated 20.5.2019 set-aside; bail allowed subject to personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of appearance, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4237 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Santosh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Khurshed Alam,Dileep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ishan Deo Giri,Praveen Kumar Giri

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the first informant and 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 20.5.2019, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria by which the bail application of the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 596 of 2019, (Udit Singh and others vs. State of U.P.) in S.T. No. 166 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No. 42 of 2018, under Sections 323, 332, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria has been rejected vide order dated 20.5.2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that as per allegations made in the FIR the appellant is said to have assaulted the victim alongwith four other coaccused persons by Danda, however, the victim has not suffered any injury on his person. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that similarly placed coaccused persons have already been granted bail and the case of the appellant stands on the same footing as that of co-accused persons who have already been granted bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 20.5.2019 and no injury has been caused to the victim. The criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para 11 and 12 of the affidavit.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

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 20.5.2019 is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶10

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.5.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria, is

¶11

set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed.

¶12

Let the appellant Santosh be released on bail in S.T. No. 166 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No. 42 of 2018, under Sections 323, 332, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.10.2019 R

Santosh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Pala and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kuraisha Begam and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ayodhya Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadure Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Bauwa @ Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Rathaur Vs State of U.P. and Another