Allowed

Vipin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023/442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2023, the Division Bench allowed the bail appeal filed by Vipin Singh under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, setting aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail, granting conditional release on furnishing bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 27.01.2023 of Special Judge set aside; appellant released on bail with conditions.

Vipin Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 442 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Vipin Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manish Singh Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary AfÏdavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Sri Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Sri Ajay Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, has been filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, DistrictPratapgarh, in S.T. No. 566 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 282 of 2018 under Sections 147,148,149,323/149,504,307/149,302/149 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Mandhata, District -Pratapgarh and has sought bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicantappellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that in fact the main role has been assigned to Mannu Prasad Tiwari and Swayam Singh for opening fire over the deceased. He submits that the deceased has received one gunshot injury though in the first information report, several accused persons have been assigned the role of opening fire over the deceased and thus, it could not be ascertained that who is the author of the injuries. Adding his arguments, he submits that later on, the Chief as

¶10

well as Cross examination of the eye witnesses /injured persons were got done by the prosecution wherein they have demolished the story of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. He next added that the role, if any, for opening fire, has been assigned to Mannu Prasad Tiwari and Swayam Singh, thus, the role of the present appellant is distinguishable from the role of aforesaid co-accused persons. He next added that the appellant has history of seven cases, which has been explained in the Supplementary AfÏdavit. He further added that the appellant is languishing in jail since 29-10-2018 and there is no fate of trial. He also added that there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial proceedings in near future and the appellant is suffering for his no fault. He submits that the appellant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 3 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the appellant has been named in the F.I.R. and after thorough investigation, it was found that he was involved in opening fire over the deceased and other injured persons and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has supported the version of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that there are ample evidences against the present appellant including the other co-accused persons and thus, he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it evident that there is one gunshot injury over the body of the deceased and the main role of opening fire over the deceased has been assigned to Mannu Prasad Tiwari and Swayam

¶14

Singh and thus, the role of the present appellant is distinguishable from the role of the aforesaid coaccused persons.Further after the first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 14-11-2019, the cross examination of the three injured persons/witnesses have been got done by the prosecution,wherein they have demolished the story of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Further the appellant has history of seven cases, which has been explained in the Supplementary AfÏdavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 29-10-2018 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District-Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 104 of 2023 is set aside .

¶16

Let the applicant-appellant, Vipin Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶18

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶19

3.The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶20

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through

¶21

counsel by the court concerned. Order Date :- 27.2.2023 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vipin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

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

Mr. Laxmikant Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and Others

Arun Singh @ Arun Pratap Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Bhola Nath Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Mushtaq Ahmad Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh and Another

Meraj and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others