Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021CRLA/3686/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail refusal order under the SC/ST Act, 1989. Finding it to be a fit case considering the nature of allegations and cross-FIRs involving injuries, the Court set aside the lower order and granted bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.11.2020 refusing bail is set aside. The appellant Manoj is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3686 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Manoj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Maimoona Fatima Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Pre. of Atrocities Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No.3307 of 2020 (Arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2020), under Sections 147, 323, 324, 354(d), 325, 308 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khajni, district Gorakhpur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant Laljit. It was mentioned that named accused persons Suggan, Manoj, Jhuluri Devi, Saroja and Jhinki started teasing the sister of the complainant and using caste related words and committed marpit with her and also tried to molest her. It was further mentioned that the accused persons attacked the family members of the complainant with lathi, danda, kudal and gandasa. The said first information report was registered as Case Crime No.137 of 2020 and was registered on 04.07.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that there are cross F.I.R.s, in which both the sides have received injuries. It is apparent that the prosecution has not come up with clear hands and it is difficult to ascertain at this stage who was the aggressor. He submitted that the accused side has also lodged first information report against the complainant side of this case, copy whereof has been registered on page no.30 of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application, which was registered as Case Crime No.136 of 2020. He submitted that it was registered on 03.07.2020, prior to lodging of the FIR lodged by the complainant. It was mentioned that eight persons of the complainant side attacked the family members of the accused side in which they have also sustained injuries, copy of the injury report is annexed on page no.56 onwards of the affidavit, filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.10.2020.

¶9

Per contra, Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A., for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the aforementioned order is hereby set aside.

¶11

Let the appellant-applicant Manoj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.1.2021 R./

Manoj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Champa Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vidhya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ramratan Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Mangal Vs State

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of Up and Another