The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection under the SC/ST Act. The appellant, alleged tractor driver with role identical to a co-accused already granted bail, was released on bonds and sureties.
The impugned bail rejection order is set aside; the appellant is released on bail furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.
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. - 1087 of 2020
Appellant :- Sukhveer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Auraiya, in Case Crime No.46 of 2019, under Sections 304 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sahayal, District Auraiya.
Contention, in brief, is that the appellant is alleged to be driver of the tractor. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in commission of the offence. Similarly circumstanced co-accused Avnish Pujari has already been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2020 on 06.04.2021. The case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been admitted to bail. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 26.12.2019.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 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 appellant.
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 appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.01.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Sukhveer involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 6.8.2021 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant, a co-accused with similar role to a bail-granted co-accused, is entitled to bail in a trial under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the bail application ought to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhveer
State of U.P.
Another
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
