In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court held that the Special Judge made an error in rejecting the bail application. The court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellants.
Impugned order setting aside bail granted; accused released on personal bond and two sureties of ₹10,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1049 of 2021
Appellant :- Rajesh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar Maheshwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in Case Crime No.- 227 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(5A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police Station- Berkhada, District- Pilibhit.
Contention in brief is that in this case as per the version of the F.I.R. three named persons arrived at the house of the informant and assaulted his son after trespassing into the house of the son of the informant apart from it they also assaulted the other family members of the house. He added the injury has been alleged to have been caused by blunt object and neither in the statement of the injured nor the informant nor any other witness it has come out that any blunt object was in the hand of the appellants. Only general allegations have been made against al the appellants. Further submission is that the fracture on head has been incurred by the injured Mohit but it has nowhere explained that the appellants caused the said injury. Under the similar set of facts co- accused Kallu @ Kamlesh has already been admitted on bail on 3.8.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.823 of 2021, Kallu @ Kamlesh vs. State of U.P. and another, copy whereof has been produced by the appellants, the same is taken on record.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellants but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellants-applicants has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellants.
Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.
Let the accused-appellants, namely, Rajesh and Raju involved in the
aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
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.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Raj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants.
Whether the appellants have made out a case for bail despite the impugned order.
Whether acquittal or bail is granted to the accused named Rajesh and Raju.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
