Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021CRLA/1806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, setting aside the Special Judge's order dated 23.01.2020. The court held that the appellant had made a case for bail based on lack of eye-witnesses and the prior grant of bail to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The bail rejection order dated 23.01.2020 is set aside; the appellant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1806 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Arvind Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari,Abhay Krishna Singh,Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

A certified copy of the corrected bail rejection order dated 23.01.2020 has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to correct the prayer clause in the appeal during the course of day.

¶7

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

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- Arvind with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Bail Application No. 97 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 124 of 2019 under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S.Garautha, District- Jhansi.

¶9

As per the allegations made in the first information report, son and son-in-law of the informant did not reach home; in the morning, the informant alongwith co accused Vinod went out to search for them; a motorcycle was found on roadside; body of both the deceased were found in agriculture field; head of both the deceased was crushed. There is no eye-witness account; applicant was implicated on mere assumption; there is no evidence linking the applicant to commission of offence.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motives. It is also argued that main accused Vinod has been granted bail by the court below on 28.02.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9192 of 2020 and the applicant who had nothing to do with the matter, was simply falsely implicated. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2019.

¶11

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶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-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶13

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the 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 23.01.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶16

Let the above named accused-appellant 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 applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Arvind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Nripat Vishwkarama Vs State of Up and Another

Dev Gupta Vs State of Up and Another

Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Chand Alam Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Naushad Vs State of U.P. Nd Another

Rajendra Bajaj Vs State of U.P. and Another