Allowed

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021CRLA/1685/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against bail rejection. The Court found no convincing evidence against the appellant, noting he was not named in the FIR and was similarly situated to a co-accused already granted bail. The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1685 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 04.02.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Firozabad, in Case Crime No.140 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 323, 342 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Naseerpur, District Firozabad.

¶7

Office report dated 13.08.2021 indicates that notice upon opposite party no.2 is awaited. Learned A.G.A. informs that as per his information, notice upon opposite party no.2 has been sufficiently served.

¶8

Accordingly, notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed to be sufficient.

¶9

Contention, in brief, is that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It so happened that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the present case. After five months of the incident, Rinki wife of co-accused Sandeep merely stated that the applicant too accompanied the deceased at the relevant point of time when the occurrence took place. Except that, there is no concrete evidence available against the applicant. Similarly circumstanced co-accused Sandeep and Pradeep have already been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.416 2021 on 22.07.2021. The case of the present

¶10

applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been admitted to bail. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 27.10.2020.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶12

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 has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.02.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶16

Let the accused-appellant Pradeep involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 rkg

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanaram Pal @ Vindrawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pragya Chaturvedi @ Pragya Suri and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailashi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another