Allowed

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021CRLA/1660/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of bail in a case involving IPC offences and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including cooperation with the trial and furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1660 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mahendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA.

¶6

The present criminal appeal has been filed u/s 14(A)(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned order of rejection of bail dated 22.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Maharajganj in Bail Application No.178 of 2021 in Case Crime No.353 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 308 IPC and Section 3(1) Dha of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Nautanwa, District Maharajganj.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant was not named in the First Information Report. The name of the applicant has been disclosed for the very first time during investigation. Under the similar circumstances co- accused Mathura Yadav has already been admitted to bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 25.06.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1567 of 2021, copy where of has been produced by the applicant, the same is taken on record. It is further submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and it is case of false implication. There is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant is in Jail since 22.2.2021 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, I find that the court below has erred in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order dated 22.2.2021 is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶10

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court (S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj is set-aside and this appeal stands allowed.

¶11

Let appellant- Mahendra Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 308 I.P.C. and 3(1)Dha S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Nautanwa, District Maharajganj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶17

(v) The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

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 appellant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 Raj

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banshidhar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Thakur Vs State of U.P.and Another

Nazeeb Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Gupta Vs State of U.P.and Another

Amit Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another