Allowed

Arjun v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023CRLA/10351/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejection order. The appellant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without being charge-sheeted, and the Court found the rejection erroneous given the lack of specific motive or recovered evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties upon verifying conditions of the judgment.

Arjun Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:131795

¶2

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10351 of 2022 Appellant :- Arjun Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Kashyap,V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hathras in Bail Application No.1858 of 2022 (Arjun Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.471 of 2018, under Sections 302 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Sikandrarau, District Hathras.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted that the appellant was named in the first information report but during investigation his name has been excluded by the investigating officer and charge sheet was filed against coaccused, Leeladhar only. Appellant is summoned by the trial court invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. It has been further submitted that except the evidence of last seen of the appellant and Leeladhar with the deceased there is no evidence against the appellant. The case is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no recovery of any incriminating article on the pointing out of the appellant. No motive has been assigned to the appellant. The chain of event dose not indicate that the appellant is author of the case. There is no criminal history against the appellant. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶8

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and the fact that appellant was not charge sheeted, appellant has no criminal history and appellant was summoned by the trial court to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and no other evidence is available on record against the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶9

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶10

Let the appellant, namely, Arjun involved in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.7.2023/Atul

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun v. State of Up 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

Chandrabhawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithilesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhathi Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vineet Alias Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another