Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019CRLA/4655/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge Moradabad rejected bail for appellant Jograj Singh accused under SC/ST Act. The High Court Appeal allowing bail, held impugned order erroneous considering nature of injuries, no criminal history, and lack of evidence suggesting caste-motivation alone.

What did the court decide?

The appellant Jograj Singh be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions against tampering and re-offending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4655 of 2019 Appellant :- Jograj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manish Joshi Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶2

Short counter affidavit, filed by learned AGA on behalf of the State today in Court, is taken on record.

¶3

Counter affidavit, filed by counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 today in Court, is also taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Bail Application No.1517 of 2019 (Jograj Singh Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.158 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad seeking his release on bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶6

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.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the appellant along with three others tried to strangulate the victim Mahesh and also assaulted him by sharp edged weapon, kicks and fists, due to which, he suffered injuries.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that there is no evidence that present incident has been committed only on account of the fact that the victim Mahesh belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court towards the injury report of the victim Mahesh.

¶10

From the careful perusal of the injury report of the victim Mahesh, it is evident that injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are simple in nature, whereas injury no.4 was kept under observation, however, as per the supplementary injury report, injury no.4 has been found to be simple in nature.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or

¶12

tampering the witnesses. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the appellant is in jail since 18.05.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit and the injuries found on his person are simple in nature.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Jograj Singh involved in Case Crime No.158 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilari, District Moradabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 23.10.2019 /Nadim

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jograj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Kashyap and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipul Rai and Another Vs State of Up and Another