Dismissed

Kishan Lal @ Setti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023CRLA/3052/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Kishan Lal @ Setti challenging the bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act. Upholding the Special Judge's view that the appellant actively participated in the crime, the Court refused bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Bail application impugned in the appeal is dismissed; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Kishan Lal @ Setti Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150685

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3052 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Kishan Lal @ Setti Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Mool Chandra Maurya,Birendra Singh,Jata Shankar Pandey,Yash Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Firozabad in Bail Application No. 2115 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 201 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad.

¶8

As per FIR, case of prosecution is that the daughter of informant Karishma was taken away by the appellant Kishan Lal @ Setti on 01.06.2020. The dead body of the daughter of informant Karishma was found near service road of Gram Modha, which was identified by the informant. The informant had suspicion that his daughter was done to death by the appellant Kishan Lal @ Setti.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that Karishma daughter of the informant was living with the appellant but she developed illicit relations with coaccused Banty and started living with him. The appellant has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The co-accused Banty was also named in the FIR. It is submitted that merely on the basis of suspicion the appellant has been implicated by the informant in this 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 21.12.2020 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

¶10

case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that son-in-law of the informant Jitendra had seen the deceased Krishma on 10.06.2020 with the present appellant and he narrated this fact to the informant also. It is submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant knife has been recovered which was used in the commission of crime.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the active participation of the appellant in the commission of crime, I do not find it fit case for bail.

¶13

Since the trial court has passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence available on record, there is no occasion to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court, hence, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed .

¶15

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties subject to full co-operation by the appellant, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Prajapati

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishan Lal @ Setti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal @ Setti v. State of U.P.

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

Iqkrar @ Pappal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahasn Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lukesh Arora and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Pandey @ Kariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Waseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another