Allowed

Sunil v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021CRLA/1432/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court allowed Sunil’s appeal against the rejection of his bail application. The Court found that the learned Sessions Judge committed illegality by failing to consider relevant aspects and relying on shaky evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of appellant on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, upon furnishing to the court concerned.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1432 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Sunil Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satyaveer Singh,Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Notice sent to respondent no.2 as per report of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.05.2021 has been served personally. None is present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶7

This appeal has been filed by appellant Sunil against the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah passed in Bail Application No. 464 of 2021(Sunil vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 354 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶8

The FIR was lodged on 7.6.2020 by the informant Bhanu Pratap Singh in respect of an incident of the same day with the allegation that some persons climb over the house of the informant and noise was made by the informant and family members whereupon those persons jumped down and crossing the boundary of the school and causing firing, escaped from the place. By their firing, one Robin who happens to be tenant of the informant sustained fire arm injury in both his legs. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons. Subsequently, during investigation the name of the appellant came in light. The name of the appellant came by the information given by the police informer. Subsequently, the statement of Raghvendra Pratap was recorded and in his statement it come that two or three days before when his younger sister had gone to market to purchase some domestic things and while she was returning from the side of roadways bus station, certain persons chased her sister and misbehaved with her. She told about the incident whereupon the younger brother of the victim went alone with her sister to roadways bus station and when she indicated towards a boy and was inquired by the brother of the victim, the said persons and one more persons started quarreling and abusing. The persons

¶9

present there were addressing them by names of Hemant and Mohit, they threatened with dire consequences and after two days this incident took place.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries sustained by the Robin have not been found on vital part as indicated in the medical report and the injured also could not identify the assailants. Further submission is that there is no mention by the witnesses examined by the I.O. that on whose information they came to know that the appellant was involved in the commission of the offence. Moreover, it has been submitted that with regard to alleged misbehaved with the daughter of the informant there is no FIR nor that fact has been mentioned in the first information report. The appellant was not arrested from spot and there is no independent witness of the incident. In respect of criminal history, it has been submitted that two cases which has been earlier lodged pertains to offence under Section 35 of the Electricity Act and the other two offences have been registered subsequent to the lodging of the FIR in this case. It has been further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge SC/ST Act did not consider the relevant aspect of the matter and it was not also taken care of that involvement of Yali @ Dinesh has been found to be false and the bail application of the appellant was rejected merely on the ground that Robin had sustained injury and the offence has been committed against a person of scheduled caste community. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶11

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that in this case fire arm injury has been found and the name of the appellant has come in light subsequently and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application.

¶12

Considered the submissions of both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and kind of accusation which has been made against the appellant and also finding that the evidence with regard to involvement of the appellant appears to be shaky in nature, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has committed illegality in passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶13

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah, is set aside.

¶14

Let appellant-applicant Sunil be released on bail in Bail

¶15

Application No. 464 of 2021(Sunil vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 354 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Mini

Sunil v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

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

Shafeek Vs State of U.P.

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

Arif Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ravindra Pandey and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.