Allowed

Ravi Upadhayay v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019CRLA/4503/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed challenging an order rejecting bail under the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the appellant with conditions after noting that a similarly placed co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Ravi Upadhayay Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4503 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Ravi Upadhayay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Himanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

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 19.06.2019 passe by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Bail Application No. 913 of 2019 (Ravi Updhyay Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime no. 545 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶8

In para 17 of the counter affidavit, filed by learned AGA today, it has been stated that notice/information about the pendency of this criminal appeal has been given to Opposite Party No.2 Santosh and the copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to this affidavit, however, despite service of notice, none has appeared on his behalf.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant was not named in the FIR and his name as an accused in the present case has surfaced for the first time in the statement of Mantosh, son of the deceased, which is said to have recorded after 10 days of the incident on 29.11.2018 and the role of conspiracy has been assigned to co-accused Mantosh, whereas the appellant Ravi Upadhyay is said to have standing nearby him. However, neither in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the victim, no specific role has been assigned to the appellant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the coaccused Manoj Sharma has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2263 of 2919.

¶12

Copy of the bail order has been annexed as Annexure-7.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the case of the appellant stands on better footing than that of the co-accused Manoj Sharma, as such, prime facie a case for releasing him on bail is made out.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail since 15.06.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that similarly placed co-accused Manoj Sharma has already been granted bail by this Court and that the appellant is in jail since 15.06.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶16

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the appellant Ravi Upadhyay 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 subject to following conditions :-

¶18

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Nadim

Ravi Upadhayay v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Upadhayay 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

Om Prakash Alias Omi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Samoyal Khan @ Bantu Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Dinesh Pratap Singh and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ved Prakash and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Km. Ritu Darbari @ Ritu and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Diwakar Chaudhary and Anr. Vs State of Up and Anr.