Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2021CRLA/3407/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal for bail, the appellant was accused of offences under Sections 394, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. While the appellant contended false implication and site plan discrepancies, the court rejected these arguments as premature findings at the bail stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act was allowed to be filed but the prayer for bail was rejected; appeal lacks merit.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3407 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Second Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of S.C./S.T. Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge S.C.S.T. (P.A.) Act, Aligarh in Case Crime No.163 of 2020, under Sections -394, 307, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station -Dadon, District -Aligarh.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶9

(i) the appellant is accused of offences under Sections- 394, 307, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)V SC/ST Act;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 17.07.2019, the appellant is in confinement since 12.08.2020;

¶11

(iii) according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has no criminal history;

¶12

(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶13

(v) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted that the appellant has been completely falsely implicated in the occurrence. The brother-in-law of the injured had falsified the allegation

¶14

in the FIR that as to ownership of the motor cycle that the injured was riding at the time of occurrence. Next, it has been submitted that the place of occurrence as alleged in the FIR does not co-relate with the site plan. While, the FIR alleges the occurrence on the main road, the site plan indicates that the incident took place inside forest area. As to the injury, it has been submitted that the same was simple in nature in the shoulder region. Referring to the delay in lodging the FIR, it has been last submitted that wholly false allegation has been made on a concocted story. Also, it has been stated that the co-accused Manoj, has already been enlarged on bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No.2739 of 2020 vide order dated 23.02.2021.

¶15

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

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, no inference of delay may be claimed at this stage as clearly the FIR came to be lodged under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the necessary order had been passed by the learned Magistrate. In that regard, it is undisputed that the injury report was prepared on the date of occurrence itself being 28.04.2019. As to the nature of injury suffered by the injured, at present, it cannot be disputed that it was a firearm injury caused in the chest region. Therefore, the fact that the injured may not have suffered a life threatening condition, may remain a matter of chance. Insofar as the ownership of motor cycle is concerned, the same is not of any relevance at this stage as it may never be a material fact in the context for the offence alleged. Thus, at this stage, it would be wholly premature to reach any conclusion of fact in favour of the applicant. In light of the direct role assignment made and the nature of injuries claimed, no ground is made out to grant indulgence at this stage.

¶17

7. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 2.11.2021 S.Chaurasia

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

C/M of Shri Dan Kunwar Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Shyam Pal Singh Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Prajapati and 27 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Misbahul Islam Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sunita Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another