Allowed

Naved v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2021CRLAD/240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court set aside the impugned order rejecting bail, citing the appellant's cooperation, lack of criminal history, and status of evidence, and directed his release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order rejecting bail is set aside, and the appellant is released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 240 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Naved Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

In absence of any objection as to the correctness of the copy of the FIR annexed, defect is deemed cured.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.2; Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 29.01.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hathras, in Case Crime No. 549 of 2020, under Section - 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Sikandrarau, District - Hathras , whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 17.11.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 16.01.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, the FIR allegations are false and/or exaggerated in view of certain other facts and disputes between the parties. Referring to the statement of the injured and the injury report, it has been

¶9

submitted, undisputedly, the injured was in an inebriated state and that some dispute arose between the parties while they were engaged in gambling. In that scuffle, the injured fell from the terrace and sustained injuries. Thus, it has been submitted, the injuries were unintended and mere accidental than deliberate. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.

¶10

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

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained.

¶12

Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Naved , involved in the aforesaid crime 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.12.2021 Abhilash

Naved v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naved 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

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kalpi Devi and 5 Others

Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anil Singh and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat and 2 Others

Nirbhal Singh @ Chhote Sahab Vs State of Up and Another

Ravi Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Chhutakan @ Kamlesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another