Allowed

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021CRLA/2620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed by a medical practitioner against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and released the accused on bail due to heavy pendency and lack of complicity.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order dated 07.09.2020 set aside; accused released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to cooperating in trial.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2620 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Appellant :- Himanshu Kumar,Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sujeet Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant, Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya in Case Crime No. 338 of 2020 under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Section 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act and Section 30 of United Provinces Medical Act, 1917, P.S.- Ajitmal, District- Auraiya.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report, the uncle of the informant complained pain in the chest and accordingly he was taken to the Ayurvedic Clinik of the present applicant who took Rs. 50,000/- and did not administer therapy and later on when the condition worsened he was asked to go for CT Scan etc. in the Government Hospital where the applicant's uncle was declared as brought dead.

¶8

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 the appellant is a registered medical practitioner in Ayurvedic Medicine and registered with Indian Medical Council of the U.P. Unit and medical certificate has also been brought on record. It is also argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit except the one in connection with Case Crime No. 815 of 2018, under Section 15(2)B and 15(3) of The Drugs Control Act, 1950 in which he has been granted bail on 03.06.2019 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya. It is further argued that the applicant being degree holder in Ayurvedic Medicine, he is fully entitled to practice in the said medicine. He submits that there is no evidence except the statement of informant that the applicant ever took Rs. 50,000/- and had admitted the uncle of the informant in his clinic. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in the

¶9

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 26.08.2020.

¶10

Per contra the argument advanced by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. is that the applicant has been found to be running a clinic though it could not be established by them as to whether he was practicing in Allopathic system of medicine. It is also not disputed that except the case referred above, there is no criminal history to the credit of the applicant.

¶11

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.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Nitin Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ruby Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Yadav @ Munna Vs State of U.P.and Anothers

Shitesh and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another