Exemplary bail was granted to the appellant Tej Ram following appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 14.12.2020 by Special Judge. Additional conditions for bail were imposed.
Appellant Tej Ram released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and additional conditions; impugned order dated 14.12.2020 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 276 of 2021
Appellant :- Tej Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Anjani Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned order dated 14.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kannauj in Bail Application No.1010 of 2020 (Nemichandra and others Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 0530 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 14.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the FIR, in which allegations have been levelled against five persons including the appellant herein. Counsel for the appellant has further drawn my attention to the statement of the informant, wherein he has deposed to the effect that the appellant has not caused injuries. He further argues that appellant has no criminal antecedents and there is noting on record to demonstrate that the appellant if enlarged on bail, would any way affect the trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the appellant.
At this stage, without going into the merits of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, considering the allegations against the appellant, criminal history and no adverse material on record satisfying the Court that the bail cannot be granted, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let appellant- Tej Ram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in
the interest of justice:-
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The order dated 14.12.2020 is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 14.6.2021 S. Rahman
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the appellant should be allowed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail should be quashed.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Tej Ram
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
