Allowed

Kuldeep @ Vikram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021CRLA/3293/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 3293 of 2021, the Single Judge allowed the appeal against the rejection of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Noting doubts about the recoveries made without a public witness and the availability of call detail records, the Court set aside the impugned order and enlarged the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.07.2021 rejecting bail is set aside. The appellant is enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3293 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Kuldeep @ Vikram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Krishan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailesh Singh Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Shailesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 05.07.2021, passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mainpuri, in Case Crime No.35 of 2021, under Sections -302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Kishni, District -Mainpuri , whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 24.01.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 26.01.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted that the appellant's wife had parted company and was living with the deceased since long. There was no earlier complaint or allegation made against the appellant of having caused any inconvenience or having issued any threat or having committed any offence against the deceased. In that background, it has been further submitted that unidentified body was discovered by the chowkidaar on 03.01.2021. It was duly recorded in the GD entry. On 24.01.2021, for the first time, FIR was lodged with respect to an occurrence almost one month earlier. The FIR itself was lodged by the father of the deceased, six days after he had identified the body of the deceased. In such facts, it has been submitted that other than the suspicion, there is no credible material or evidence to proceed against the appellant even on the basis of

¶8

circumstantial evidence. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.

¶9

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the informant has referred to the recovery of a mobile phone and a muffler, at the pointing out of the appellant. He has also made reference to the call detail records and the statement of the witness.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as the recoveries are concerned, the same has been doubted as there were no public witness and recovery was made from an open place. As to the call detail report, prima facie it does not appear that such technical evidence is available against the appellant on the case diary.

¶11

In view of the above, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained.

¶12

Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.07.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Kuldeep @ Vikram , involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.12.2021 S.Chaurasia

Kuldeep @ Vikram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep @ Vikram 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

Dilip @ Raseedul Haq Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hamza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gore Lal Vs Staten of Up and Another

Darvesh Fauji Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rauf Vs State of U.P and Another