Allowed

Ram Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/1043/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside bail rejection orders. Relying on the delay in trial and the bail of a co-accused, the court released the appellant on bail with conditions and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection orders set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and sureties; trial directed to conclude within one year.

Ram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3766

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1043 of 2020 Appellant :- Ram Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri V.M. Sahai, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.05.2020 (passed in Bail Application No.431/2020) and impugned order dated 30.09.2020 (passed in Bail Application No.1621 of 2020) passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.232/2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur.

¶7

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. As the matter is pending since 2021, therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that earlier the appellant was implicated in 24 other criminal cases, in five cases, he has been acquitted, in one case, proceedings have been dropped and in all other cases, he is enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 08.12.2019 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused, namely, Wahid Ansari, having identical role has already been granted bail on 07.04.2022 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2022. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute this fact that the co-accused Wahid Ansari is already

¶11

enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, F.I.R., statement of injured as well as other relevant documents; as the co-accused has already been granted bail and the appellant is in jail since 08.12.2019, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated impugned order dated 22.05.2020 (passed in Bail Application No.431/2020) and impugned order dated 30.09.2020 (passed in Bail Application No.1621 of 2020) passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellant- Amarjeet Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence

¶19

of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶21

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Rajjan Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Harinath Alias Dhanai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Nakul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Amarjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.