Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021CRLA/1323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the appeal against the rejection of bail. Holding that no convincing reasons were provided by the State to sustain the lower court order, the court quashed the rejection and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Appellant on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to cooperation in trial and not jumping bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1323 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Pratap Singh,Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Yogendra Pratap Singh, 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- Gyan Singh with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.2.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 27 of 2020 rejecting the bail application in Case Crime No. 444 of 2020 under Sections 447, 506, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)X SC/ST Act, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi.

¶7

Allegations in the first information report are that when the laying of pegs had been done after the measurement exercise was carried out under the order of the Court in the presence of revenue officials and the the revenue officials left the place, the applicants and the members of the family removed all those pegs and took away the barbed wire and pillars that were installed and also threatened the informant of his life and property.

¶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 further argued that because of on going civil dispute with respect to boundary of the agricultural field that the applicant has come to be named in the FIR alongwith other members of the family. It is further argued that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. It is also argued that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there is no criminal history to the credit of the applicant. It is also submitted that though the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case, but 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 20.2.2020.

¶9

Per contra, the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. but he 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 20.2.2020 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 :- 27.1.2021 Deepika

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar 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

Santosh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another