Allowed

Raju Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023CRLA/3445/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of bail, the Allahabad High Court held that the appellant made out a case for bail considering the lack of motive, incriminating evidence, and criminal history. The court set aside the lower court order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail application set-aside. Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138399

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3445 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Raju Bind Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pravinendra Bahadur Singh,Devesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Despite sufficient service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶7

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

¶8

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 impugned order dated 23.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Allahabad in Bail Application No.955 of 2023 (Raju Bind Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 306 of 2022, under Sections 304, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Manda, District - Prayagraj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. Name of the appellant was disclosed first time by witnesses, Babu Lal and Ram Bahadur. No motive has been assigned to the present appellant. No incriminating article has been recovered either on pointing out or from possession of the appellant. There is no evidence against the appellant. 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 31.12.2022 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.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the appellant, namely, Raju Bind 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Atul

¶21

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

Raju Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Bind 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

Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safeeq Kahan @ Chunnu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Israr Shekh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babloo Urf Ballu Vs State of U.P. and Another