Allowed

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2021CRLA/364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against a bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act, the single judge held that since the co-accused was released on bail and the appellant lacked criminal antecedents, there was no risk to the trial. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was released on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.1.2021 was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions.

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 364 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. 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 appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned order dated 15.1.2021 passed by learned ADJ/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lalitpur in Case Crime No. 927 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur. The Presiding Officer has rejected the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 15.1.2021.

¶8

Counsel for the appellant argues that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.3.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2021. He argues that similar role has been assigned to the appellant.

¶9

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

¶10

I have perused the record. The appellant is in custody since 3.1.2021 and considering the nature of the offence as well as the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and coaccused has been enlarged on bail and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial, the appellant is

¶11

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let appellant- Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

The appellant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶17

The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

The order dated 15.1.2021 is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.6.2021 S. Rahman

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu 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

Chhotu Singh @ Parbes Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Bind Vs State of Up and Another

Aashish Vs State of Up and Another

Rajan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murari Lal Vs State of Up and Another

Mahesh Singh Bhadauriya @ Deenu Vs State of U.P.