Allowed

Mukul Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021CRLA/1463/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. Finding nothing convincing against the appellant and noting a lack of direct evidence, the court set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.02.2021 rejecting bail set aside; accused-appellant released on personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1463 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mukul Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State 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 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mathura in Case Crime No.- 649 of 2020, under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)V-Ka of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant.The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.02.2021.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Mukul Sharma 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 appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 Raj

¶15

Digitally signed by Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra Date: 2021.08.04 16:28:24 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukul Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Sharma 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

Vijay and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh @ Dhillu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nehru Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram @ Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Taslimun alias Talimunnisa Vs State of U.P. and Another