Allowed

Chandra Veer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021CRLA/3584/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. The single-judge bench held that the appellant had established a case for bail, found the state's argument unconvincing, and allowed the appeal to release the appellant on bond. Subject matter involves murder and theft charges.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the rejection of bail order dated 11.11.2020; directed the release of the appellant on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Chandra Veer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3584 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Chandra Veer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Tewari,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties 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- Chandra Veer with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Aligarh in Bail Application No. 3950 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 589 of 2018, under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Khair, District- Aligarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report, while the wife of informant had gone for grazing the cattle at around 01.00 p.m. on the fateful day i.e. 01.09.2018, did not come back and resultantly the informant asked his younger brother Nagesh to search out and when Nagesh reached at the agricultural field of one Shivdan Singh, he found the dead body of victim lying there with dupatta around her neck.

¶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 although the FIR was lodged against unknown but it is on the statement of the sister in law of the victim that the applicant and the co accused Munesh @ Avon were seen coming out of the same agricultural field where the dead body was found. It is on the said suspicion only that the applicant has come to be implicated. It is also argued that the recovery is falsely shown of a very small jwellery item from the possession of the applicant, whereas, in the inquest report, it is clearly mentioned that certain jwellery items were still on the body parts of the victim and therefore, it is argued that had there been any intention to commit loot then the applicant and co accused would have completely robbed the victim of her jewelries worn. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and the co accused Munesh @ Avon has already been granted bail as his appeal bearing no. 3317 of 2019 has come to be allowed vide order dated 28.05.2019 and further that in the wake of heavy pendency of

¶9

cases in the Court, there is no chance of early conclusion of the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.09.2018.

¶10

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶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 11.11.2020 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 :- 28.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Chandra Veer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Veer 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

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

Sanju and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikas Yadav @ Puttoo Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Niraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others