Allowed

Subhash v. the State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jun 2021CRLA/1849/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the criminal appeal filed under the SC/ST Act. It granted bail to the appellant in Case Crime No. 402 of 2020 despite initial rejection, noting he had already secured bail for the same incident in an Electricity Department FIR. The court imposed specific undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with sureties and specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1849 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Subhash Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Raja Ullah Khan

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raja Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Vide order dated 28.01.2021 notice was issued to respondent no.2 fixing 22.03.2021. Office report dated 16.03.2021 indicates that notice was served on respondent no.2, however, no one is present on his behalf.

¶8

This appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Court No.02, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No. 3096 of 2020 (Mahendra and others vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 402 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353, 395, 397, 504, 506, 333, IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶9

Sri Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the First Information Report, the allegation is against 40-50 persons armed with sticks, who were protesting against the power cut and during that, an altercation took place between the mob and the police party, which led to the lodging of the First Information Report. Sri Khan next contended that another First

¶10

Information Report was lodged by the officers of the Electricity Department as Case Crime No.401 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 332, 353, 427, IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act at Police Station Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur in which appellant was enlarged on bail by the Court below on 22.10.2020. Copy of the bail order has been brought on record as Annexure 9. On the same incident another First Information Report was lodged by the Police party as Case Crime No.402 of 2020, i.e. the present case, in which Court below had rejected the bail application of the appellant. It is next contended that the appellant is a labour and has no concern, and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the appeal, submits that injury was caused to the Station House Officer Govind Singh and thus the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail but he could not deny the factum that the appellant was enlarged on bail on 22.10.2020 in another case lodged by Electricity Department against the appellant on the same day which was relating to same incident.

¶12

Having heard the counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record it transpires that as per the prosecution story, there were 40-50 people present at the site of demonstration. Further the appellant having no criminal history and having already been enlarged on bail in another case lodged by the Electricity Department on the same day, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail in this case also..

¶13

Let appellant- Subhash be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject

¶14

to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of this computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

In the result, the order dated 18.12.2020 is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 28.6.2021 Kushal

Subhash v. the State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. the 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

Azam @ Aazeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rekha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Md. Maroof Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others