Allowed

Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2021CRLA/2768/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application before the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act court. The appellant argued that the impugned order was illegal as it relied partly on his criminal history and partly on a non-admissible confessional statement without other direct or circumstantial evidence. The court allowed the appeal, finding the rejection unjustified, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order of rejection is set aside; the appellant is released on bail with provisions for sureties and court conditions.

Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2768 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt,Rahul Mishra,Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajit Singh,Ram Chandra Solanki

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by appellant Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare against the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri passed in Bail Application No. 154 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.372 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not named in the FIR and there is no direct evidence available against him. Only evidence against him is that he was arrested in some other case and it is said that he made confessional statement to the police that he was involved in the commission of the murder of the said Ranjeet with two other persons. Further submission is that the confessional statement made to the police is not admissible against the appellant and even though there is no other evidence, learned Special Judge illegally rejected the bail application only on the basis of that the deceased was a person of scheduled caste community and also that the appellant was having criminal history of 10-12 cases. Further submission is that the criminal history has been well explained and in all those cases the appellant has been granted bail. It has been further submitted that without considering the material aspect of this matter, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have

¶9

vehemently opposed the prayer but have conceded to the fact that except confessional statement made to the police, there is no other evidence against the appellant. They have however emphasized with regards to the criminal history of the appellant. Further submission is that charge-sheet has already been filed by the police after investigation.

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides. This is relevant and important fact that the case against the appellant is based on his confessional statement which was made to the police. There is no other direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence and only on the basis of criminal history rejection of the bail application by the learned Special Judge is not justified under law particularly when in all those cases the appellant has been granted bail.

¶11

In view of the above, I find that the illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri, is set aside.

¶13

Let appellant-applicant Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare be released on bail in Bail Application No.154 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.372 of 2018, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶15

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Mini

Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare 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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chandrawati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Kamlesh Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Smt. Mamta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others