Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021CRLA/6471/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 6471 of 2019, the Single Judge allowed the bail application of Vikas Yadav, setting aside the lower court's rejection order. The court held the appellant had made out a case for bail, directing his release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 7th September, 2019 rejecting bail set aside; accused released on bail on personal bond and two sureties.

Vikas Yadav @ Puttoo Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6471 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Vikas Yadav @ Puttoo Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Jagmohan Singh,Devendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel 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 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 7th September, 2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No.- 2703 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.- 277 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Maharajpur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report the daughter of the informant aged about 16 years had gone missing from the evening of 5th August, 2019 and when he asked the applicant, he abused him with casteist remarks and thus the informant lodged the first information report against the appellant under a genuine impression that it was the appellant who had kidnapped his daughter.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also argued that informant's daughter is a consenting party as she has not corroborated the version of first information report in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. It is further submitted that there is no external or internal injury on her body in the medical examination conducted by the doctor. It is next submitted that there is no criminal history to the credit of the applicant. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14th August, 2019.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having

¶11

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 complainant/ 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 7th September, 2019 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Vikas Yadav @ Puttoo 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 Atmesh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

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

Tasavar Vs State of U.P.