Allowed

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2021CRLA/2707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the single judge allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of his bail application. The court observed that the impugned order could not be sustained and granted bail subject to personal bonds, two sureties, and conditions to cooperate in trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting bail were set aside; the appellant was released on bail on personal bonds and two sureties.

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2707 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Ghanshyam Das Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed today. Taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and; Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 25.6.2021 and 29.6.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra in Case Crime No. 203 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 149, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)da, 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Hariparwat, District - Agra , whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶9

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 2.6.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 9.6.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; the appellant has no criminal history; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, though general allegations were made in the FIR against all eight accused persons, at the same time, eye-witness Pawan has ascribed the role of assault

¶10

with iron rod to Chotey @ Lalu. General allegations have been made against the appellant by that witness. However, there is no injury report to support the general allegations. One external injury has noted in the injury report, which has been attributed to Chotey @ Lalu by Pawan. The case of the present appellant is different from that Chotey @ Lalu. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant/s, cannot be sustained.

¶13

Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts and submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant/s be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶14

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25.6.2021 and 29.6.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay, involved in the aforesaid crime 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.12.2021 Prakhar

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay 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

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpi Devi and 5 Others

Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anil Singh and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat and 2 Others

Naved Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirbhal Singh @ Chhote Sahab Vs State of Up and Another

Ravi Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.