Dismissed

Satyendra Yadav @ Halkutta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020CRLA/5674/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Satyendra Yadav against the rejection of his bail application. The court held that the impugned order was just, proper, and legal given the severity of the offence under Sections 302, 201 IPC and the SC/ST Act, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; criminal appeal dismissed; trial to be concluded within six months.

Satyendra Yadav @ Halkutta Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5674 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Satyendra Yadav @ Halkutta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaytri Rajput

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State Sri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 25.7.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Hamirpur in Bail Application No. 839 of 2019 (Satyandra Yadav @ Halkutta Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Muskara, District - Hamirpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant was rejected.

¶8

As per the first information report, the information was given to the Police by the informant that his son Sandeep, was missing and the appellant was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., it is stated that the applicant who has taken Rs. 12,000/from the deceased, has murdered the son of informant. Thereafter, statement of witness Satrudhan was recorded in which it is stated that he has seen the deceased along with appellant on motorcycle. Prima facie there is no other evidence except the last seen and some recovery has been made from the appellant/accused.

¶9

Since the trial has already commenced and the evidence of PW1 had already been recorded.

¶10

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 and specific role assigned to the appellant, I am not inclined to grant the bail to the appellant. The impugned order dated 25.7.2019 passed by the trial court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference.

¶11

The appeal is dismissed .

¶12

On the basis of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the trail court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months, if possible, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Akbar

Satyendra Yadav @ Halkutta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Yadav @ Halkutta 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

Ram Sumiran Vs State of U.P.

Sitara Khatun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adalati Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Asray Vs State of U.P. and Another