Allowed

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021CRLA/1003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal under SC/ST Act, the High Court quashed the Special Judgment rejecting bail application. The court observed lack of convincing justification for continued detention, noting recorded statements were pending and no criminal history existed, granting bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside and appellant released on bail furnished by personal bond and two sureties to satisfaction of Court concerned.

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1003 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Pankaj Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kashi Nath Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kashi Nath Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Pankaj Yadav with the prayer to set aside the order dated 21.1.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (P.A.) Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Ghazipur in Bail Application No.1742 of 2019 rejecting the bail application in Case Crime No. 151 of 2019 under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST (P.A.) Act and Section 66 IT Act, P.S.- Karanda, DistrictGhazipur.

¶7

Allegations in the first information report are that the applicant showed indecent behaviour with the daughter of the victim and uploaded her photograph on the social media like facebook to malign her image. It is next submitted that even after the informant complained about the said incident at the concerned police station, no action was taken against the applicant, nor the FIR was lodged and so an application was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which was granted.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motives. It is next submitted that the applicant is having good friendship with the daughter of the informant and even she was in affair with him. It is further submitted that no statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded till date. It is also argued that there is no criminal history to the credit of the applicant. It is also submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2019.

¶9

Per contra, the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. but they could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State to justify and sustain the order of the court below rejecting the bail applications of the appellants.

¶11

Thus, in view of the above and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.1.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Deepika

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Yadav 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

Shani @ Sarvesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pravesh Puri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abutaliv Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another