The Special Judge confirmed the bail of the appellant, Brijesh Kumar Pandey, who was appealing against a bail rejection order. The court found no convincing reasons to sustain the lower order and granted bail with personal bonds and two sureties.
Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 884 of 2021
Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 25.11.2020, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sonbhadra in Case Crime No. 134 of 2020, under Sections - 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V)(a) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Chopan, District - Sonbhadra.
Urge has been made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has no concern with the offence alleged against him. The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the appellant. The allegations made against the appellant are vague and baseless. 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 15.07.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 25.11.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Brijesh Kumar Pandey 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.
Order Date :- 8.9.2021 S Rawat
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a sufficient case for bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brijesh Kumar Pandey
State of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
