Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021CRLA/962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against the rejection of bail in a case involving sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 302/34 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. The court held that the lower court erred in rejecting bail due to reliance on circumstantial evidence without eye-witness account or material recovery, allowing the appeal and granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, non-tampering, and lawful conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 962 of 2021 Appellant :- Pankaj Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Janam Singh,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

As per office report, notice upon respondent no. 2 has already been served but none is present on behalf of respondent no. 2.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Pankaj Yadav with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.09.2020, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2612 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 831 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 149, 120B, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report version is that on 25.08.2019, the named accused person caused fire arm injury and the deceased died. Further submission is that although the appellant is named in the first information report but he has been named only on the basis of suspicion and the informant is not an eye witness. Informant and other witnesses of the family have been examined by the I.O. but none of them have stated that they saw the incident and they saw when the accused shot dead the deceased. there is no eye witness of the alleged incident and no one has seen the appellant causing any fire arm injury to the deceased. There is no material recovery from the appellant. The

¶9

case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. The criminal appeal of co-accused Shivam Dixit has already been allowed and he has been granted bail and the judgment of appeal has been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed today. Submission is that the learned Special Judge did not consider the material aspect of the matter and being influenced by the fact that the first information report has been made and the deceased belongs to SC community, he rejected the bail application of the appellant. The appellant has been in jail from the last about two years. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the the prayer and has submitted that the learned Special Judge has legally rejected the bail application of the appellant and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He has however, considered that there is no eye witness account in support of the first information report version and the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are yet to be established during trial. There is no eye witness account nor there is any material recovery from the appellant. Therefore, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The

¶12

impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.09.2020, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant namely Pankaj Yadav involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The 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 appellant 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 appellant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 sailesh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj 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

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

Sanjay Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Kamlesh Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Lal Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Savariya @ Nitin Bihari Goswami and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another