Allowed

Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021CRLA/1815/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the bail rejection order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), and granted bail to the appellant Veerendra Kumar Dubey. The bench held that the trial court erred in rejecting the bail by ignoring that the appellant was not named in the FIR and was not present at the inception of the incident.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Veerendra Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1815 of 2021 Appellant :- Veerendra Kumar Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶5

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

¶6

As per reports of concerned C.J.M. dated 09.06.2021 and 12.07.2021 notice to respondent no. 2 has been served personally as well through his heirs but none is present on behalf respondent no. 2.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Veerendra Kumar Dubey with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 01.03.2021, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 969 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 261 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant is not named in the first information report. In October, 2018, the money has been said to have given to coaccused Anurag Pandey and allegations against the accused persons is that they have provided forged joining letter and they manipulated the sign on the register of the board office to give impression that the informant has been provided the job. Subsequently, when the money was demanded back, co-accused Anurag Pandey refused and used abuses with caste related

¶9

words and threatened him with dire consequences. Submission is that the appellant is no where named in the first information report. Further submission is that no money has ever been given to the appellant. The appellant has been in jail since 14.02.2021. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the the prayer and has submitted that the it has been specified that the appellant was present at the time when money was given to co-accused Anurag Pandey and he has also stated to the informant to give money. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that the appellant is not named in the first information report and no money has been given to the appellant. His presence at the time of giving money has been brought on record quite late. Moreover, the incident against which, the first information report has been lodged when took place, the appellant was not in picture. It appears that this significant facts have been ignored by the learned Special Judge and the case of the appellant was quite different to that of the case of the main accused Anurag Pandey. Therefore, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

¶13

dated 01.03.2021, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant namely Veerendra Kumar Dubey involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶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 :- 6.9.2021 sailesh

Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Kumar Dubey 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

Jahangeer Quraishi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hansraj Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Mishra @ Amar Babu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another