In a criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail, the Special Judge allowed the appellant's plea, setting aside the rejection order and directing the release of the accused.
Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; accused Bablu, Motiram, and Sanjay released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each.
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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2187 of 2021
Appellant :- Bablu And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ayank Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Moradabad, in Case Crime No.631 of 2020, under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 149, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v), / 3(2) (va), 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad.
Contention, in brief, is that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants though they are named in the first information report but their false implication in this case is outcome of thoughtful and deliberation with the police on account of neighbourhood enmity. Similarly circumstanced coaccused Mohan Gangwar though he was not named in the first information report, has already been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.958 of 2021 on 16.07.2021. The case of the present applicant is similar to that of coaccused who has already been admitted to bail. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 06.06.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/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 11.02.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Bablu, Motiram and Sanjay involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant, a co-accused languishing in jail with no criminal history and similar status to another admitted co-accused, is entitled to bail.
Whether the order rejecting the bail application should be set aside.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bablu And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
