Allowed

Vineet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023CRLA/5977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant Vineet appealed against the rejection of his bail application. The Single Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail subject to standard conditions, noting the lack of prosecution version support and prior bail of co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside and the appellant Vineet was released on bail with an unconditional bond and two sureties.

Vineet Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5977 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Vineet Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra,Narendra Kumar Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Narendra Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Farrukhabad whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 1340 of 2021 (Vineet and another Vs. State of U.P.) in Special Session Trial No. 1007 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2021, under Sections 302, 323, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Merapur, district Farrukhabad.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. It is submitted that informant Lakhan Kumar and injured eye-witness Amar Singh have not supported the prosecution version in their deposition in the court. It is also submitted that PW 1 informant Lakhan Kumar in his deposition has stated that he was not informed by his father Amar Singh on mobile about the occurrence and involvement of appellant in the incident. He has also deposed that deceased Sripal and injured Amar Singh were not found lying in the factory of co-accused Pushpendra. PW 1 informant Lakhan Kumar has denied that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant Vineet, Pushpendra and other co-accused present there. It is next submitted that injured Amar Singh has deposed in his evidence that eye-witness Ram Naresh and Kishan Yadav were not present at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that apart from this

¶9

case, two other criminal cases have been registered against the appellant and in one case, Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Merapur District Farrukhabad, the appellant accused has been enlarged on bail and another case, Case Crime No. 203 of 2021 under Section 3 (1) of Gangster Act was registered after arrest of the appellant accused in the present case. It is further submitted that co-accused Jitendra has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order date 2.1.2023. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 23.07.2021 and, in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and argued that appellant along with other coaccused have severely beaten injured Amar Singh and deceased Sripal resulting in death of Sripal.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, complicity of the accused, injury report of Amar Singh and Sripal, postmortem of deceased Sri Pal, statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the fact that PW 1 Lakhan Kumar and PW 2 injured Amar Singh have not supported the prosecution version, the period of detention undergone by the appellant, the fact that co-accused Jitendra has already been enlarged on bail, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2021 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant Vineet be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(ii) That 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

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶18

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶19

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Pratima

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vineet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet 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

Priyanka Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ariz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakti Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Alias Pintu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bantilal @ Pardeshi Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another