Allowed

Rajan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021CRLA/3350/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal arose from the rejection of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the post-mortem report suggesting the deceased was an alcoholic and accepted arguments of no criminal history for the appellant. Finding the State's submissions unconvincing, the Court allowed the appeal and revoked the bail rejection order. The appellant was ordered released on pe

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of bail rejection is set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation in trial.

Rajan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3350 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Rajan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pooja Srivastava,Rajan Srivastava,Sr. Advocate (Shri V.P. Srivastava) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rudra Pratap Pandey,Vidhu Bhushan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Renu Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Rudra Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Rajan with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mainpuri in Bail Application No. 2024 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 606 of 2020, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report, the named accused persons along with another unknown person physically assaulted the brother of the informant Sarvesh Kumar aged about 40 years on 06.09.2020 and resultantly he was taken and admitted to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctors.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motives. It is also argued that from the perusal of post mortem report which bears an injury on the left cheek, as detailed to be a lacerated wound, cannot be said to be so serious which can result into death. It is also submitted that looking to the post mortem report, the lever is completely ruptured and Perinoteum and Peritonial cavity are full of blood. It is therefore, argued that the deceased was an alcoholic person and because of severe adverse impact of alcohol on the internal vital organs that had resulted in the death of victim. It is further argued that in one of the statement of the accused it has come that the deceased was an alcoholic person. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and further that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of

¶9

early conclusion of the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2020.

¶10

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant but they could not dispute the aforesaid facts nor, could dispute the post mortem report regarding the findings qua internal body parts that have been cited by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶12

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶13

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Rajan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another