Allowed

Govinda v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021CRLA/278/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals by Govinda and Anil against orders rejecting their bail applications in a case involving death under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court set aside lower court orders and granted bail after finding the evidence did not justify detention.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting bail were set aside; appellants directed to be released on bond and two sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 278 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Govinda Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Fateh,Priyanka Devi,Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar

¶4

with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2153 of 2020

¶6

Appellant :- Anil Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar

¶7

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶8

Since both the criminal appeals arise out of one and same incident relating to same case crime number, are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶9

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Bharadwaj, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned Counsel for the appellants-applicants in Criminal Appeal No.2153 of 2020, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶10

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants- Govinda and Anil with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 21.12.2019 and 14.7.2020 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application Nos. 6302 of 2019 and 7350 of 2019 respectively, rejecting the bail applications in Case Crime No. 1186 of 2020 under Sections 304 and 147 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶11

Allegations in the first information report are that victim was taken from home by the named accused persons including the present applicant and was administered liquor. It is further alleged that initially they physically assaulted him and after presuming that the victim had died, they carried him and threw away him from an auto rickshaw. It is further alleged that on being informed, wife of the informant took victim to the Sharma Hospital and then Kashiram Hospital and ultimately to the Safdarjung Hospital on 20.8.2019. Later it is said that

¶12

victim died on 22.8.2019.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantsapplicants that no specific role is assigned to any of the named accused persons. It is next submitted that as per the injury report and post mortem report, they fully corroborate that it was a case of accidental death. It is further argued that they are all labourers and there might be some dispute between them on the basis of which the name of the applicant has come in the FIR. It is also argued that there is no criminal history of the applicant. It is also submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.11.2019.

¶14

Per contra, the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. on the ground that the statements that have been recorded by the police cannot be disbelieved. They, however, cannot dispute the fact that the applicant is having no criminal history.

¶15

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.

¶16

Thus, in view of the above and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.12.2019 and 14.7.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellants are set aside.

¶18

Let the above named accused-appellants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.1.2021/Deepika

Govinda v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda 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

Shohrat Madar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Patel Vs State of Up and Another

Arjun @ Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gudgud Vs State of Up and Another

Anil Singh Rathore Vs State of U.P.

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