Allowed

Sunil Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2021CRLA/3001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal sought bail release for the appellant, who was not named in the FIR. The Court granted bail, setting aside the lower court's order, citing prima facie merits and the appellant's lack of personal culpability compared to the main accused.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; impugned order dated 21.06.2021 set aside.

Sunil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3001 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Sunil Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Dhar Goswami,Pradeep Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Dhar Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

A perusal of office report indicates that despite of the service upon opposite party no.2, no one appeared on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. With the aid and help of learned A.G.A., the Court is proposing to decide the present appeal.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(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 21.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur in Case Crime no.165 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sadat, District-Ghazipur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR and the FIR was registered against three named accused persons namely Acchey Yadav, Brijesh Yadav and Rakesh Yadav and the name of the appellant figured up in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of co-accused Anand Yadav on 02.10.2020. The actual role of assault has been attributed to Achhey Yadav who has already been granted bail by the court below on 04.01.2021 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur. The role of the appellant stands on better footing qua the abovesaid co-accused. Thus, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and giving the panoramic view of the incident, the appellant is liable to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that all the criminal antecedents to the credit of the appellant has been duly explained in paragraph no.10 to the rejoinder affidavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2021.

¶10

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Let the appellant- Sunil Yadav , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(v) THE APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT 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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

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

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur in Case Crime no.165 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sadat, District-Ghazipur, is hereby set aside.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Sumit S

Sunil Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Yadav 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

Bhupendra Chaudahry @ Bholu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravez Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Vs State of U.P

Shani Singh @ Shani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durga Prasad Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P.