Allowed

Israyal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2023CRLA/10642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The Court set aside the lower court's order, finding the appellant made out a case for bail due to lack of motive, no flight risk, and similar co-accused being granted bail. Release was granted subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court.

Israyal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:229143

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10642 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Israyal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar,Piyush Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of appellant is also taken on record.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. submits that notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2 has been duly served but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶8

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

¶9

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 26.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act)/Maharajganj in Bail Application No.1581 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 304 IPC and Sections 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Toothibari, District Maharajganj.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no motive has been assigned to the appellant to commit the crime. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Guddu has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5009 of 2021. Appellant has criminal history of one case under Section 25 Arms Act in which he has been implicated after the present case. 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 09.05.2023 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

¶11

case.

¶12

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

¶13

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, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant, namely, Israyal 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.

¶16

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 4.12.2023 AKT

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Israyal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israyal 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

Smt. Komal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nagma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Jyoti @ Jainam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Matarua @ Vinod Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Arti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Visheshan @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Another