Allowed

Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2021CRLA/697/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended, seeking to set aside the order rejecting the appellant's bail application. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. Bail was granted to the appellant on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.

Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 697 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 29.01.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Case Crime No. 287 of 2019, under Sections - 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Express Way, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

Urge made on behalf of the appellant has been confined to the extent that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. No offence has been committed by the appellant. Absolutely vague and baseless allegations have been levelled against him. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.07.2020.

¶8

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

¶9

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 has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the accused-appellant - Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.8.2021 S Rawat

Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhopal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Farman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afaq Husain Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neelam Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Bhargawa Vs State of U.P.

Satendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers