Allowed

Ishwar Alias Vicky v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021CRLA/2463/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act, setting aside the lower court's rejection of bail. The court held the appellant's case was distinguishable from the co-accused who possessed the firearm and granted bail on furnishing security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.6.2020 rejecting bail is set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties; direction to verify order internet.

Ishwar Alias Vicky Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2463 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Ishwar Alias Vicky Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey,Sunil Kumar Yadav,R0886

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant-Ishwar alias Vicky with the prayer to set aside the order dated 30.6.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special, SC/ST Act, District Baghpat in Bail Application No. 769 of 2020 rejecting the bail application in Case Crime No. 78 of 2020 under Sections 452, 504, 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 P.S.- Chhaprauli, DistrictBaghpat.

¶8

Allegations in the first information report is that at around 5.15 AM, the applicant alongwith co-accused Saurabh @ Sheru entered the house of the appellant and Saurabh @ Sheru and opened fire upon the uncle (Tau) of the informant as a result of which he died on the spot. As per post mortem report, there is only one gun shot injury on the body of the deceased.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No role has been assigned to the applicant for causing fire arm injury to the deceased whereas recovery of the used fire arm has also been shown from the possession of the co-accused, Saurabh @ Sheru. It is then argued that case of the applicant is quite distinguishable from that of the other co-accused. It is further submitted that applicant is shown to have criminal history of four cases and all of them are of the year 2015 and has come to be explained in paragraph no.20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is claimed that the applicant is enlarged on bail in

¶10

all the four cases. It is also submitted that though the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case, but 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 25.3.2020.

¶11

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. but they could not dispute the aforesaid facts. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶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 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.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.6.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside .

¶14

As the case of the present applicant is distinguished from the co-accused, Saurabh @ Sheru, let the above named accusedappellant 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.1.2021

¶17

Deepika

Ishwar Alias Vicky v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Alias Vicky 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

Dharm Raj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Singh Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax and 2 Others

C/M Baba Satyadev Junior High School and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hari Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Gupta @ Panchu Gupta Vs State of U.P.