The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order. Granted bail to the appellant, who was accused of an SC/ST atrocity case involving assault and disturbance, releasing him on personal bond and two sureties.
Impugned order of bail rejection set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 192 of 2021
Appellant :- Rakesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Rakesh Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Aligarh in Second Bail Application No. 4630 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 08 of 2020 under Sections 147/332/353/342/225/336/504/506/307 I.P.C., and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Barla, District- Aligarh.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, the police having found a news that some illegal trade was going on in country made liquor, they raided the house of Arvind Yadav and found that adulteration work was being performed in the country made liquor and when Somveer and Arvind were caught red handed on the spot, the other named accused persons including the applicants abused the police men and also pelted stones and bricks in which one Subhash Yadav got injured.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that earlier the present accused was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 14.12.2020 under sections 272/419/420/467/468/471/147/332/353/342/325/307 IPC and section 60/63 of Excise Act and later on the Investigating Officer who has submitted the charge sheet in section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act also. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has further submitted that 3 co-accused Ompal, Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Kumar who have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 11.01.2021. Copy of the bail orders have been supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant which are taken on record.
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 Somveer has been exonerated by the police in the charge sheet,
whereas, Arvind Yadav has been granted bail by the court below on 15.06.2020 in Bail Application No. 995 of 2020 and the applicants who had nothing to do with the matter and were simply falsely implicated, inasmuch as, the injury report showed injuries to be quite simple in nature, are still lying behind the bars. He has further relied upon the statement of the injured witness also. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the applicant have no criminal history to his credit. However, 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 05.08.2020.
Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Vikram
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the second bail application under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act should be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Yadav
State of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
