Allowed

Kamal Kant v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023CRLA/8178/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court examined the rejection of bail for the appellant in a case involving offences under sections 147, 148, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Kamal Kant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing before trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185123

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8178 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Kamal Kant Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Haya Rizvi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Atif Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Atif Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, 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 bail rejection order dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh in Bail Application No. 4426 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 498 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Iglas, District Aligarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There are allegations against eight persons including the appellant that they have caused offences of rioting, forming illegal assembly, beating and attempt to murder against the person belonging to scheduled caste. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. It is further submitted that co-accused Kanahaiya Lal and Banti have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.202023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10186 of 2022. Apart from it, co-accused Gajendra @ Pattha and Teetu @ Manoj Kumar have also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6100 of 2023. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. 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 24.07.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will

¶10

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 but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶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 appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let the appellant, namely, Kamal Kant 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 appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (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 :- 25.9.2023 AKT

¶21

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

Kamal Kant v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kant 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 Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shejal Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjani Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhole Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another