Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021CRLA/3374/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the bail rejection order. The appellant, a Corporation Director, argued lack of liability for pre-appointment acts. The court found no convincing ground to sustain the lower court's order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; the appellant is released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount.

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3374 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

According to counter affidavit filed by the State, notice has been served on opposite party No. 2, however, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is being proceeded on merits.

¶8

Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim learned counsel for the appellant, SriVikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

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 06.2.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act Varanasi in Case Crime No. 367 of 2020, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Cantt. District - Varanasi whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 13.4.2020 the appellant is in confinement since 02.9.2020; the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant did not have any criminal history prior to the present occurrence, however

¶11

subsequently similar allegations have emerged; 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, relying on the fact that the applicant was appointed Director of the Corporation on 01.2.2019 whereas the disputed deposits were made between 2012-16. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the applicant cannot be held liable for the past acts of the Corporation or of its agents and Directors prior to his appointment; other co-accused are also stated to have been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Thus, in view of the above noted facts 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 have made out a case for bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.2.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶17

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rajeev Kumar Prajapati 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

¶18

condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.12.2021 Faraz

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati 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

Raj Kiran @ Neeraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Soran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another