Dismissed

Rishipal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021CRLA/686/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal, the appellant challenged the rejection of his bail plea under the SC/ST Act. The Bench noted the appellant's extensive criminal history, including convictions for murder and sexual atrocity, and the concealment of certain cases. Finding the appeal lacked merit given the serious criminal record, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter.

Rishipal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 686 of 2021 Appellant :- Rishipal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Vikram Singh Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Tiwari

¶2

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This appeal has been filed by appellant Rishipal Yadav against the impugned order dated 06.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jhamsi passed in Bail Application No.2101 of 2020 (Rishipal Yadav vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.344 of 2019, under Sections 452, 387, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District-Jhansi, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶5

The FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 in respect of incident dated 13.6.2019 on 17.6.2019 making allegation that the respondent no.2 was going by his Activa Scooter, the named accused persons tried to snatch away the Activa Scooter and on his resistance co-accused Rahul cut on his chest by teeth and, thereafter, co-accused Dheeraj and Rahul committed maarpeet with him and damaged the Activa Scooter. The incident was seen by so many persons while the informant was going to lodge the FIR. The accused persons with a known criminal who is the accused appellant came with country made pistol in his hand abusing him by caste related words and entered into the house and when his mother shouted in resistance they threatened and abused by caste related words and went from there and threatening with dire consequences.

¶6

The Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of four days for which there is no reasonable explanation in the FIR. Further submission is that when the injured was examined by the I.O. he did not disclose the name of the appellant nor he said that he also participated in the alleged offence. In respect of criminal history, supplementary affidavit has been filed and criminal history has been explained to the effect that in most of the cases he has been granted bail and in the two cases in which he was convicted he has been released on bail. Further submission is

¶7

that this fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge and merely influenced by the criminal history and the fact that the offence was committed against a person of scheduled caste community, the bail application was rejected. The impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that there is huge criminal history of the appellant and in this case beside the fact that he was knowing that the FIR has been lodged he did not surrender for more than one year. He has criminal history and, therefore, the appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. It has also been submitted that the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act has considered all the relevant aspect and has rejected the bail application of the appellant.

¶9

Considered the submissions of both the sides. This fact requires to be pertinently mentions that there is criminal history of twenty cases and the same includes the offence under Sections 302 IPC, Gunda Act, SC/ST Act, offence of rape and other offences of heinous nature. It is also necessary to mentioned that in atleast two criminal cases pertaining to the offence of murder and offence of sexual atrocity the appellant has been convicted. The conviction order has been annexed by the appellant himself. It has been further mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. that in the memo of appeal the appellant disclosed only 13 criminal cases and conceal the other seven cases and only after when the exact criminal history was disclosed from the side of the informant, the supplementary affidavit was filed by the appellant and he tried to explain the criminal history of other seven cases. Although the supplementary affidavit is not on record but a copy thereof has been provided for perusal and the same is taken on record. It has also been mentioned that a case under UP Gangster Act has also been registered against the appellant, under Gunda Act externment order has been passed against him. As such, looking to the serious criminal history of the appellant, I find that the appeal has got no force and learned Special Judge SC/ST Act has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is dismissed .

¶10

The learned Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial and disposed of the same, in accordance with law.

¶11

Order Date :- 6.8.2021 Mini

Rishipal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Singh Chauhan @ Seetu Vs State of U.P.

Prem Paswsan @ Prem Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Meenakshi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Surmila and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manish Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others