Allowed

Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jun 2022CRLA/1241/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of bail in S.C./S.T. Act case. High Court allowed appeal, setting aside bail rejection due to lack of criminal history and injury evidence discrepancies, and directed release on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1241 of 2022 Appellant :- Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶3

Office report dated 27.06.2022 indicates that the notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 which is evident from the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj dated 26.04.2022. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. Thus, notice upon opposite party no.2 is deemed sufficient.

¶4

Heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

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 31.01.2022, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mahrajganj, in Case Crime No. 12 of 2021, under Sections -323, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)dha of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Parsamalik, District- Mahrajganj, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no enmity with the injured, moreover, as per the prosecution story, injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. While, the injury report shows that the injuries are simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt objects. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 31.01.2022.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. while opposing the appeal submitted that the role of causing injuries assigned is to Rahul and Rishikesh. He further contended that the X-ray report also shows that the injury was caused on the head. However, he fairly conceded the fact that the appellant is having no criminal history.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant having no criminal history and the role assigned is to three persons while there is single injury caused on the head, the appellant is entitled for bail and, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellants, cannot be sustained.

¶9

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

¶10

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.

¶11

Let the accused-appellant, Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.6.2022 SK Goswami

¶18

Digitally signed by SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI Date: 2022.06.28 18:12:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishikesh Yadav @ Kade 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

Haji Raham Ilahi Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar and 3 Others Vs Munna Lal @ Munnu Lal

Lakhan Singh Vs Phool Singh and 2 Others

Sarita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zishan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.