Allowed

Satyaveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2021CRLA/3394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court noted lack of ocular testimony and doubtful recovery evidence. Without expressing a merit opinion, the court found the case compelling prima facie and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on personal bond and two sureties; impugned bail rejection order set aside.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3394 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Satyaveer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Malviya

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Rajeev Malviya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed challenging the legality and validity of bail rejection order dated 17.6.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad in Bail Application No.1800 of 2021 (Satyaveer vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime No.51 of 2021, under Sections 147, 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) and 3(1)M of SC/ST Act, Police StationRasoolpur, District-Firozabad.

¶7

Genesis of the case starts from lodging of the F.I.R. by one Akash Kumar on 26.02.2021 at 06.10 hours in the morning for the incident said to have taken place at 03.00 hours in the dead night in between 25/26.02.2021 against seven named persons including the appellant and three unknown. Since this appeal is on behalf of appellant Satyaveer and thus the court is focusing on the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant Satyaveer only. As per text of the F.I.R., in the dead hours of night between 25/26.2.2021 one Kiran d/o Hari Singh has called her beloved Pawan Kumar (the deceased) and when the deceased reached to the spot, all named accused persons have jointly assaulted by hard blunt object causing serious injuries to him and eventually done to death. After registering the F.I.R., it has come in the light that Kiran s/o Hari Singh and the deceased were nurturing a tender relationship between them. The deceased belongs to S.C. category and the named accused persons are belonging to O.B.C. category (Barber by caste). During investigation the police has recovered a piece of grindstone ( silbatta ), four dandas and a pair of sleepers. The deceased has sustained nine injuries over his person which all are caused by hard and blunt object. In these injuries there are multiple abrasions over the deceased, having dimension like 65 cm x 16 cm, 23 cm x 13 cm, indicative of the fact that grindstone ( silbatta ) was used as weapon of offence.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no ocular testimony to the alleged incident took place in the dead hours of the night and the entire incident said to have occurred at the place of Hari Singh. The co-accused Kiran in her testimony has not even taken the name of appellant. It is further contended by the appellant's counsel that the applicant has got no motive to commit the offence nor got any relationship with the father of co-accused Karan Singh. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged subsequent recovery dated 01.3.2021 too is doubtful as there is no independent witness to this recovery. The appellant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that Satyaveer and Jayveer are the members of one family and the appellant has got every reason of his participation in the commission of offence, but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the role played by the appellant, absence of motive for committing the offence and the recovery of the grindstone ( Silbatta ) at the pointing out of appellant too is on doubtful proposition, coupled with the fact that there is no ocular testimony of entire incident, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the appellant- Satyaveer , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY

¶14

ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶17

(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 17.6.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad, is hereby set aside.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.9.2021 M. Kumar

Satyaveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyaveer 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

Ajay Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sammo Khatun and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bilal Vs State of U.P and Another

Sahil Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Titu @ Dheerendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another