Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2020CRLA/7536/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Criminal Judge allowed an appeal against the detention of appellants accused under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held that the lower court erred in rejecting the bail plea and ordered their release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellants ordered to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Jeetu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7536 of 2019 Appellant :- Jeetu And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

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

¶4

In para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by Kharpatta Ram, Circle Officer, Mahrauni, District Lalitpur, it has been stated that information/notice regarding filing of present criminal appeal has been given to the complainant/opposite party no.2 Mulayam S/o Kanai 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.

¶5

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 27.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Bail Application No. 633 of 2019 in S.S.T. No.103 of 2018 (Jeetu & Ors Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2018 for offence under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pali, District Lalitpur seeking his release on bail.

¶6

As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 30.6.2017 complainant was returning his Village- Pali, then the accused/appellants stop the complainant and forcibly demanded Rs. 1000/- for drinking liquor, when the complainant objected for the same, the appellants abuses and beaten by kick and fist to the complainant and others. Subsequently the accused/appellants escaped away from the spot and threatened for dire consequences.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have falsely implicated in the present present due to ulterior motive and the appellants have no criminal history.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that the appellants are in jail since 27.11.2019 and have no criminal history to their credit, as such, they may be released on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 appellants have 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the appellants namely Jeetu, Bablu @ Balwant and Pravendra involved in S.S.T. No.103 of 2018 (Jeetu & Ors Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2018 for offence under Sections 387, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pali, District Lalitpur be released on bail furnishing on their personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

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

¶15

The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶18

The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date: - 21.1.2020/Akbar

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu and 2 Others 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

C/M Brahmacharya Ashram Shri Sarvar Sanskrti Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Uttar Pradesh Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Atar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Sumiran Vs State of U.P.

Sitara Khatun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adalati Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another