Allowed

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021CRLA/314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal allowed setting aside order rejecting bail under SC/ST Act. Court found Special Judge erred by not appreciating that appellants were close relatives and eliciting no culpability from them regarding the victim's elopement, finding apparent illegality.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.12.2020 set aside. Appellants directed to be released on bail subject to bond and sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 314 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Vijay Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Tewari,Anil Kumar Mishra,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned A.G.A., which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Notice was sent to respondent no.2 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned vide letter dated 05.02.2021 has submitted that the notice has been personally served on respondent no.2.

¶8

None is present for the respondent no.2.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed by appellants Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar against the impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonebhadra passed in Bail Application No. 1565 of 2020 (Vijay Kumar and another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pannuganj, District-Sonebhadra, by which bail plea of appellants has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is challenging the impugned order dated 7.12.2020 on the ground that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The victim had clearly stated that she had gone to the house of her uncle (Taau). Further submission is that this fact has been narrated by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. No offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants because the appellant no.1 Vijay Kumar is the uncle and appellant no.2 is the brotherin-law (Jija) of the victim. It has been further submitted that the learned Special Judge without appreciating the facts according to law and incorrect perspective illegally rejected the bail application which is liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled to be released on bail. Further submission is that

¶11

appellants have no criminal history and there is also no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶12

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the learned Special Judge considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence has rejected the bail application and there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Further submission is that charge-sheet has already been filed by the police after investigation.

¶13

Heard the argument and perused the record annexed with the appeal.

¶14

It appears that the appellants are close relatives of the victim and they lived in the same vicinity. The victim has stated that she voluntarily went to appellant no.1 because her father was beating and harassing her. It appears that the learned Special Judge took into consideration the fact that the victim is of young age and she ran away with co-accused Ravi Kumar and, therefore, rejected the bail application. Therefore, it appears that the culpability has been assigned to Ravi Kumar with whom the victim eloped. It has been pointed out that the appeal of said Ravi Kumar in Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2021 has been allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.6.2021 and Ravi Kumar has been released on bail.

¶15

In view of the above, I find that there is apparent illegality in the impugned order and the correct perspective of the case has not been considered by the learned Special Judge, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶16

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 07.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonebhadra is set aside.

¶17

Let appellants-applicants Vijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar be released on bail in Bail Application No. 1565 of 2020 (Vijay Kumar and another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pannuganj, DistrictSonebhadra on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicants-appellants will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for

¶19

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 they are 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The applicants-appellants will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶22

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 applicants-appellants to prison.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Mini

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamu Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Ansari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ratiram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another