Allowed

Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CRLA/1389/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge set aside order rejecting bail in SC/ST Act case involving appellant. Court held Special Judge committed illegality. Bail granted upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties; impugned order dated 18.02.2021 set aside.

Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1389 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the application is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant wants to not press the correction application, hence, the correction application is rejected as not pressed.

¶7

Notice was sent to respondent no. 2 and the concerned CJM by his letter dated 13.05.2021 has reported that the notice has been personally served.

¶8

None is present for the respondent no. 2.

¶9

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

¶10

This appeal has been filed by appellant Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh against the order dated 18.02.2021 of learned ADJ/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lalitpur passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 132 of 2021 (Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Singh Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 783 of 2020, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., section 3(1)(Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. - Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

¶11

F.I.R. version is that on the date of incident the named accused persons committed marpeet with lathi danda and caused injuries, they also used caste related words by abusing informant, therefore the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the bail application has been wrongly rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lalitpur. Further submission is that the criminal history has been explained by filing supplementary affidavit today and two cases have been ended because of the expiry of the time and in remaining cases the appellant have been granted

¶13

bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is case of simple marpeet and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submission is that he is in jail from the last about 10 months. Further submission is that learned Special Judge did not consider the relevant aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the bail application of the applicant-appellant. Appellant is ready to furnish the sureties and bonds and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶14

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that considering the criminal history the bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge.

¶15

Considered the submissions of learned counsel of both the sides. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, the explanation in respect of criminal history, I find that the learned Special Judge has committed illegality in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶16

In the result, appeal is allowed. Order dated 18.02.2021 passed by learned ADJ/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lalitpur is set aside.

¶17

Let appellant-applicant Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh be released on bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 132 of 2021 (Sonu Yadav @ Sonu Singh Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 783 of 2020, under sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., section 3(1)(Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. - Kotwali Lalitpur, DistrictLalitpur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶19

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶20

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful

¶21

activities.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.8.2021

¶24

Bhanu

Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav @ Son Singh 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

Aditya Singh @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shafeek Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another