Allowed

Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2021CRLA/1729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The court found the rejection illegal because the judge failed to note that the kidnapped witnesses' statements did not match the FIR allegations. Bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellants released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to cooperation and non-tampering conditions.

Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Another Vs State of U.P.and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1729 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Upadhyay,Ajendra Kumar,Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal has been filed by appellant Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Harshit Mishra against the impugned order dated 30.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah passed in Bail Application No.59 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 827 of 2020, under Sections 363, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar,District Etah by which bail plea of appellants has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the appellants have been falsely implicated and it is very much clear from the statements of the witnesses in which they had stated that the appellants got them seated in their vehicle and when they asked for country made pistol, they refused. They demanded back money whereupon they threatened to sit peacefully in the vehicle and continued roaming the vehicle here and there and when they stopped the vehicle at Maalgodam Tiraha they any how escaped from there. They had stated that had they not escaped at that time, they have been killed.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that all the three persons were already recovered and they had also stated that after committing loot and started some work in town Bagru at Jaipur. It has been further submitted that the learned Special Judge did not consider these facts and wrongfully rejected their bail applications, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. It has been also submitted that the appellants are in jail from the last more than nine months. Further submission is that appellants have no criminal history and there is also no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have

¶10

vehemently opposed the prayer but the aforesaid facts have not been disputed.

¶11

Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that the witnesses have stated to have been kidnapped have not stated in the manner it has been alleged in the FIR against the accused persons. This fact has not been noted by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order. As such, 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.

¶12

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 30.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah is set aside.

¶13

Let appellants applicants Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Harshit Mishra be released on bail in Bail Application No. 59 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 827 of 2020, under Sections 363, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicants-appellants 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 they are 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) The applicants-appellants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

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 appellants to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Mini

Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarth Pundeer @ Deepak and Another 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

Atul Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subodh Kumar@ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mannan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kant Singh @ Pinku Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.