Allowed

Rajan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2021CRLA/701/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The S.C./ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act appeal against an order denying bail was allowed. The appellant, named Rajan, was granted bail for offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act, arguing his absence from the Justice 164 statement. The court held he has no antecedents and release would not adversely affect the trial.

What did the court decide?

The appellant, Rajan, is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 701 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Gupta,Vinay Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

¶7

Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No. 4066 of 2020 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected.

¶9

Counsel for the appellant argues that although the name of the appellant appeared in the FIR, however, in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the appellant was not named.

¶10

I have perused the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is on record as Annexure No. 3 to the appeal. On perusal of the same, it appears that the victim had taken the name of two persons Avinash and Toni Singh and the appellant was not even named. The appellant

¶11

has no criminal antecedents, which fact has not been denied by the learned AGA.

¶12

Considering the fact that the appellant is in custody since 12.12.2020 and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, it would in any way adversely affect the trial.

¶13

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2021 is set aside. Let the appellant Rajan involved in Case Crime No. 0803 of 2020, under Sections 376D, 377, 366, 313, 323, 452, 427, 504, 506, 147, 120B IPC and 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The appellant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

The appellant will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions,

¶20

it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.6.2021

¶22

vinay

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia Date: 2021.06.10 10:07:55 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan 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

Chhotu Singh @ Parbes Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Bind Vs State of Up and Another

Aashish Vs State of Up and Another

Jeetu Yadav @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Murari Lal Vs State of Up and Another

Mahesh Singh Bhadauriya @ Deenu Vs State of U.P.