Allowed

Kirshan @ Krishanpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2021CRLA/2857/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In chamber order deciding five connected criminal appeals filed under the SC/ST Act. The Court allowed bail for all appellants on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, with strict conditions regarding appearance, trial cooperation, and prohibiting abuse of bail liberty.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail to all five appellants on personal bond and two sureties with conditions strictly regulating trial conduct and presence.

Kirshan @ Krishanpal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2857 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Kirshan @ Krishanpal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

AND

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2839 of 2021

¶6

Appellant :- Gagan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶7

AND

¶8

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2835 of 2021

¶9

Appellant :- Bishamber Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶10

AND

¶11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2834 of 2021

¶12

Appellant :- Ravi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶13

AND

¶14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2837 of 2021

¶15

Appellant :- Vishal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶16

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Since, all the five connected

¶18

appeals are generated from the same case crime and for the sake of gravity, all the five appeals are being decided by a common order.

¶19

The order sheet shows that in few appeals, notices were served upon opposite party no.2 personally but neither they have engaged any counsel nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. With the aid and help of learned A.G.A., this Court is proposing to decide all the criminal appeals.

¶20

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.

¶21

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli at Kairana in Bail Application No.725 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.160 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Jhinjhana, District-Shamli.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the present FIR was got registered by one Sanjay on 31.03.2021 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act against 13 named accused persons with the allegation that all the assailants armed with their weapons, have assaulted upon Vipin, Vikas and Sagar. General and omnibus role has been attributed to all the named accused persons. There is a fracture on metacarpal bone and forehand. It is not clear as to who is the author of the said grievous injury. The applicant has got no criminal antecedents to his credit and it is typical of simple marpeet. The appellants are languishing in jail since 31.03.2021.

¶23

Learned A.G.A has refuted the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶24

The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶25

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶26

Let the appellants- Kirshan@Krishanpal , Gagan, Bishamber, Ravi and Vishal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) THE APPELLANTS WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANTS TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶28

(ii) THE APPELLANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶29

(iii) THE APPELLANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶30

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶31

(v) THE APPELLANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANTS IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶32

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this court.

¶33

Accordingly, all the five appeals succeed and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 25.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shamli at Kairana in Bail Application No.725 and 724 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no.160 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Jhinjhana, District-Shamli, with regard to the aforesaid appellants is hereby set aside.

¶34

Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Sumit S

Kirshan @ Krishanpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirshan @ Krishanpal 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

Awadh Raj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sheela Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Upasna Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gagan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Tiwari Vs State of U.P.