Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023CRLA/8784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Criminal Court addressed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail applications under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Weighing the period of incarceration without engaging in a merits-based inquiry, the Court allowed the appeal, held that the appellants made out a case for bail, and set aside the rejection order. The appellants were released on bail subject to standard conditio

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; the appellants were released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8784 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Amit Kumar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Partap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devesh Pandey,Pravinendra Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

List revised. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though Vakalatnama of Shri Devesh Pandey, Advocate is on record on behalf of the informant.

¶6

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 19.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sonbhadra, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellants' respective Bail Application Nos. 2241 of 2022 and 2247 of 2022 in Special Sessions Trial No. 500 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

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 has been submitted that the injuries received by the informant/injured are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the appellant-accused is a respectable citizen having no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 19.10.2022 and in case he is released

¶9

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, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, the statements of injured and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., medical report of the injured, the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 19.10.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellants is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellants Amit Kumar and Kalawati 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 appellants shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(ii) That 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.

¶16

(iii) That after their release, the appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and Another 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

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shweta Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himalay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadabriksh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another