Allowed

Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2021CRLA/2711/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 2711 of 2020, the High Court allowed the bail application of the appellant, Chhotu Yadav, accused under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court set aside the order rejecting bail and directed release on personal bond with two sureties, noting lack of convincing counter-arguments by the State.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; the appellant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav Vs State of Up… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2711 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri H.P. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant, 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- Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav with the prayer to set aside the order dated 25.8.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ADJ, Lalitpur, in Bail Application No. 340 of 2020 rejecting the bail application in Case Crime No. 412 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 387, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S.- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur.

¶7

Allegations in the first information report are that the named accused persons who were armed with iron bars demanded Rs.20,000/- as ransom from the son of the informant and when he refused he was physically assaulted, resultantly he suffered serious injuries. It is further alleged that one of the named accused, V.P. Raja was armed with country made pistol in his hand whereas Chhote Raja and Chhotu Yadav are assigned with the role of beating the informants' son with iron bars.

¶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 next submitted that during investigation statement of the injured was recorded in which he specifically took the name of Chhotu who had hit the victim from front and yet he has not been chargesheeted. It is next argued that Chhoteraja @ Yash Pratap and Fokas @ Anil, have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.3067 of 2020 and 2618 of 2020, respectively, vide orders dated 16.12.2020. It is next submitted that the injured has taken names of several persons and the police did not conduct fair investigation and whimsically chargesheeted the applicant alongwith some other accused persons. It is also argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant. 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,

¶9

there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.7.2020.

¶10

Per contra, 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.

¶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. Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State to justify and sustain the order of the court below rejecting the bail applications of the appellants.

¶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 25.8.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

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.

¶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 :- 12.1.2021 Deepika

Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Yadav @ Deepak Yadav v. State of Up 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

Govinda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Singh Rathore Vs State of U.P.

Boby @ Shahenwaz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sibran Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Mishra Vs State of U.P.and Another

Nripat Vishwkarama Vs State of Up and Another