Allowed

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

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2021CRLA/6711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the single judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application of the appellants who were involved in assault cases.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellants released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to cooperation in trial.

Sanju and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6711 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Sanju And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Sanjay Srivastava,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jeetendra Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 15th October, 2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST Act, Auraiya in Bail Application No.1394 of 2019 (State vs. Sanju and others) in Sessions Trial 54 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.- 208 of 2018, under Sections 323, 452 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Sahayal, DistrictAuraiya.

¶8

As per the allegations made in the first information report the accused appellants before this Court along with certain other accused persons at around between 9:00 pm and 10:00 pm on 10th December, 2018 physically assaulted the informant and his wife.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that bail application of the present appellants has come to be rejected on the ground that while the applicants were on bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.- 54 of 2019 arising out of another first information report and present case crime number but they again physically assaulted the informant and resultantly another first information report was lodged bearing Case Crime No.134 of 2019. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that now the appellant, Sanju, has been granted bail in connection with Case Crime No.- 134 of 2019 by this Court vide order dated 22nd September, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 2302 of 2020. 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

¶10

15th October, 2019.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 appellants.

¶14

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 appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 15th October, 2019 rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.

¶16

Let the accused-appellants, namely, Sanju and Ajay involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.1.2021 Atmesh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju and Anr. 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

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

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

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

Tasavar Vs State of U.P.