Allowed

Shriram Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023CRLA/7657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail in a case involving SC/ST atrocity allegations. The court held that the lower court erred in denying bail, finding the appellants made a case, and ordered their release upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions to prevent tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions; impugned bail rejection order set aside.

Shriram Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:189021

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7657 of 2023 Appellant :- Shriram Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamal Kumar,Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of appellants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, 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 12.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Bail Application No. 1310 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 581 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (dha) and 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST (Prevention & Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia.

¶8

As per prosecution version, on 10.11.2022 at around 5 pm, the appellants armed with wooden stick forcibly entered into the house of informant and started abusing the informant and his other family members by addressing them with caste related words. In the aforesaid incident informant and some female members of his family were also beaten by them as a result of which they sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants as it is alleged that incident took place inside the house of informant. It is also submitted that as per the opinion of doctor, all the four injured persons has sustained simple injuries in the incident except one injured Shanti Devi who suffered fracture in her left radius bone alongwith simple injuries. It is further submitted that there is cross version of the incident and an F.I.R. from the side of appellants having case crime No. 598 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was also lodged against the informant side

¶10

in which charge sheet has also been submitted before the trial court. It is further submitted that from the side of appellants one Lalita Devi also got injured in the aforesaid incident. It is also submitted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is upto seven years. The appellant does not have any criminal history to their credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no chance of the appellants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellants are languishing in jail since 12.07.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by contending that in the aforesaid incident four persons sustained injures. All the injured persons corroborated the version of prosecution in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid incident, one injured Shanti Devi suffered fracture in her left radius bone. However, they did not deny the cross version of the incident.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellants, namely, Shriram Yadav, Rajnish Yadav and Jitendra Yadav 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶19

(v) The appellants 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 :- 3.10.2023 AKT

¶22

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

Shriram Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Yadav and 2 Others 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

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Talib Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jarif Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Dubey @ Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azaharuddin @ Raj Akela Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharukh Siddiqi Vs State of U.P. and Another