Allowed

Karan Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021CRLA/2705/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge had rejected an application by an appellant for bail in a case relating to SC/ST atrocities. The High Court held that the appellant had satisfied the bail requirements by showing a role different from the main accused and no likelihood of absconding.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2020 rejecting bail was set aside and the accused-appellant was released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.

Karan Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2705 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Karan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Bijnor in Case Crime No.337 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 120B, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor.

¶7

Contention, in brief, is that the appellant is said to be present on the spot. Nothing more was attributed to him. The role of firing assigned to the main accused Pankaj Kumar has already been admitted to bail by this coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.3075 of 2020. The case of the present applicant is at better footing to that of co-accused 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. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained under paragraph no.16 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant appeal. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶9

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

¶10

this appeal.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused-appellant Karan Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.9.2021 rkg

Karan Yadav v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Yadav 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

Madan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Bhati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Dwivedi @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nafis Vs State of U.P.and Another