Allowed

Sheelu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021CRLA/3326/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge appellate court set aside the rejection of a bail application by the Special Judge. Finding the case based on circumstantial evidence with no eye witnesses, the court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of appellant on bail with personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3326 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Sheelu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by appellant Sheelu against the impugned order dated 30.9.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar passed in Bail Application No. 2357 of 2020(State vs. Sheelu), arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR has been lodged by Vikrmaditya and the FIR itself shows that he is not an eye witness and he received information of the alleged incident by his brother-in-law Rajesh. It has been further submitted that the said Rajesh is also not an eye witness, therefore, submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the applicant is named in the FIR but he has been named only on the basis of suspicion and there is no eye witness in this case. It has been also submitted that on the basis of FIR, the appellant was arrested and before the police he made a confessional statement and on his pointing one stick was recovered which is said to have been used for the commission of the offence. Further submission is that the confession before the police is not a legal evidence and recovery of the said stick is manipulated and in no way can be connected with this offence. It has been further submitted that the learned Special Judge without considering the material aspect of the case illegally rejected the bail application, which is not sustainable under law. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that the

¶9

learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application and appeal lacks merits.

¶10

In view of the above and finding that there is no eye witness account and the case appears to be totally based on circumstantial evidence and suspicion, which is to be tested during the trial. I find that the learned Special Judge has committed error in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 30.9.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar, is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant Sheelu be released on bail in Bail Application No. 2357 of 2020(State of U.P. vs. Sheelu), arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for 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 he is 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

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 applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.9.2021 Mini

Sheelu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheelu 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

Birpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aarif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saifullah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vaibhav Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.