Allowed

Lakkho Alias Lakhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023CRLA/9168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of a bail application. The Court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail, noting that a coordinate bench had already granted bail to an identically circumstanced co-accused and considering the appellant's prolonged incarceration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with two sureties and specific conditions.

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9168 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Lakkho Alias Lakhan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a copy of bail order dated 11.01.2023 relating to co-accused, Dungar, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2023, which is taken on record.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Notice on respondent no. 2 has been sufficiently served.

¶9

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 04.07.2019 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S/.T. Act), Mathura, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 6790 of 2019 moved on behalf of the appellant in Case Crime No. 56 of 2019 under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 194, 195, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Vrindavan, DistrictMathura.

¶10

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that :-

¶11

(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive;

¶12

(ii) the appellant has not been named in the first information report. His name surfaced on the basis of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of co-accused, Moolchand @ Moola and Padam Singh;

¶13

(iii) the role of firing and murder of Ghayni alias Ghayn Singh has been assigned to the co-accused, Madhav and not to the appellant;

¶14

(iv) no incriminating article has been recovered from appellant's possession;

¶15

(v) identically circumstanced co-accused, Dungar, has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2023 respectively; and

¶16

(vi) the appellant is in jail since 05.10.2016 and has explained the criminal history of 7 other cases registered against him in paragraph no. 10 of the rejoinder affidavit filed in the bail application. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but he could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶18

Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., facts and circumstances of the case, statement of co-accused, Moolchand u/s 161 Cr.P.C., period of incarceration undergone by the appellant and that identically circumstanced co-accused, Dungar, has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the appellant, Lakkho Alias Lakhan , 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:-

¶21

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless his presence is exempted by the court.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

criminal activity.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 KS

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakkho Alias Lakhan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkho Alias Lakhan 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

Samiullah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Niharika Chaubey @ Neha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Roshan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another