Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019CRLA/5520/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the rejection of a bail application under the SC/ST Act. The High Court held that the appellant had established grounds for bail, finding the lower order erroneous. The appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside bail rejected is quashed; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to standard conditions.

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5520 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Suphal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

In para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by Sacchidanand Pathak, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer-Manjhanpur), District Kaushambi, it has been stated that information/notice regarding filing of present criminal appeal has been given to the complainant/opposite party no.2 Rakesh Kumar and the photostat copy of the notice has been annexed as annexure no.1 to the counter affidavit, however, despite service of notice, none has appeared for the opposite party no.2.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 61 of 2019 arsing out of complaint case No.54 of 2018 (4887 of 2017) (Rajes Kumar Vs. Kamla and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 395 IPC and Section 3 (1) d SC/ ST Act.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the FIR, the appellant along with five others have assaulted the victim by kicks and fists as well as lathi due to which he suffered injuries.

¶10

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. It is next submitted that general role of assault has been assigned to the appellant whereas co-accused Kamala Kant is said to have assaulted the victim by an axe, even no specific role of snatching of Rs.5000/- and one mobile from the pocket of the victim has been assigned to the appellant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that there is no evidence that present incident has been committed only on

¶12

account of the fact that the victim Rakesh Kumar belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Raj Kumar has already been granted bail in Crl. Appeal No. 1322 of 2019 vide order dated 24.04.2019. Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or 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.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶18

Let the appellant Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf involved in complaint case No.54 of 2018 (4887 of 2017) (Rajes Kumar Vs. Kamla and others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 395 IPC and Section 3 (1) d SC/ ST Act. be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶19

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

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

¶21

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Pr/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf 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

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.

Jograj Singh 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