Allowed

Kallu @ Kamlesh v. State of Up and Anotehr

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2021CRLA/823/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2021 allowed the bail plea of the appellant. It quashed the bail rejection order of the Special Judge, holding it illegal due to the absence of specific allegations assigning the injury to the appellant, and ordered his release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Kallu @ Kamlesh Vs State of Up and Anotehr — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 823 of 2021 Appellant :- Kallu @ Kamlesh Respondent :- State Of Up And Anotehr Counsel for Appellant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

Notice was sent to respondent no.2 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned vide letter dated 13.07.2021 has submitted that the notice has been personally served on respondent no.2 but none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶5

This appeal has been filed by appellant Kallu @ Kamlesh against the impugned order dated 27.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit passed in Bail Application No.118 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 227 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Barkheda, District Pilibhit by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶6

The FIR version is that on the date of incident three named accused persons including the appellant-accused committed maarpeet entering into the house of the informant and caused injury to the son of the informant. They also committed maarpeet to other family members.

¶7

The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is that the injury has been alleged to have been caused by blunt object and neither in the statement of the injured nor the informant nor any other witness it has come that any blunt object was in the hands of the appellant. Only general allegations has been made against all the accused persons. Further submission is that the fracture on head has been incurred by the injured Rahul but it has nowhere explained that the appellant caused the said injury. The learned Special Judge has committed illegality and not considering the fact that there is no specific role assigned to the appellant. The learned Special without considering this fact illegally rejected the bail application. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed and has submitted that taking into consideration all aspect, the learned Special Judge has likely rejected the bail application.

¶9

Considered the submissions of both sides. Considering the nature of accusation and the circumstances and also that the appellant is in jail from the last more than six months and there is no specific allegation against him that he caused the said injury by which fracture was incurred. As such, I find illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶10

In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pilibhit is set aside.

¶11

Let appellant-applicant Kallu @ Kamlesh be released on bail in Bail Application No. 118 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 227 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Barkheda, District Pilibhit on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶13

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Mini

Kallu @ Kamlesh v. State of Up and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu @ Kamlesh v. State of Up and Anotehr

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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chandrawati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Alias Shubham Alias Kare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mamta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others