Allowed

Bhuvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023CRLA/7212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by Bhuvesh Kumar challenging the rejection of his bail application under the SC/ST Act, citing discrepancies in land purchase details and lack of prior criminal antecedents as grounds for release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the appellant is released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7212 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Bhuvesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Sharma,Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a copy of the bail order relating to co-accused Ram Niwas Bansal passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2022. It is taken 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 24.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Ghaziabad, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant's Bail Application No. 3457 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 1111 of 2020, under Sections 420,467,468,471,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the FIR dated 26.12.2020 was lodged against the appellant and other coaccused Ram Niwas Bansal and 3-4 unknown persons on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that the appellant purchased a plot by a registered sale deed

¶8

dated 28.12.2020 from the power of attorney holder of one Sita Devi, accused-appellant Bhuvesh Kumar. It is further alleged that Sita Devi purchased the land in question, as stated in the sale deed dated 28.12.2020. It is further submitted that the land in question is different. As per allegation of first information report, informant's plot is related to Khasra No. 644 whereas the appellant purchased the land of Khasra No. 673 as shown in the sale deed in questions. It has also been submitted that as per the report dated 22.05.2021 of the area Lekhpal, the Plot Nos. 644 and 673, Colony Anjali Vihar are situated in a densely constructed area and it is not possible to verify that the informant's plot is situated in plot no. 644 or 673. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 05.02.2022 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant stating that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. But he could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence appearing in the case, the case as disclosed in both sale deeds executed in favour of the informant and the other in favour of co-accused Ram Niwas Bansal, the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other documents on record, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 05.02.2022, 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.

¶11

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 24.06.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant Bhuvesh Kumar 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

It is also 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 conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶19

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

Bhuvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvesh Kumar 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

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Swapnil Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nazma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aasma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyendra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another