Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024/2918/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting bail, and granted bail to the appellant subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and non-obstruction of evidence collection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific undertakings regarding court attendance and bail conduct.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11140

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2918 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter afÏdavit filed by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

It is evident from the ofÏce report dated 06.01.2024 based on the report of the C.J.M., Hardoi dated 16.10.2023 that the notice has already been served on private respondent no. 2, but none has put in appearance on her behalf.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 2829 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 121 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pali, District Hardoi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of confessional statement. It is further submitted that except the confessional statement, there is no evidence against the appellant. It is also submitted that as the charge sheet has been filed, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is next submitted that the coaccused, Balaster has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 2832 of 2023. Photocopy of the order dated 11.01.2024 provided by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail

¶11

application and the trial is also not going on. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 06.04.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that the appellant has admitted the manner of offence in his confessional statement. He also does not dispute that the co-accused Balaster has already been granted bail.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that involvement of the appellant was found in his confessional statement. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application.

¶14

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶15

Impugned order dated 26.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 2829 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 121 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Pali, District Hardoi is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let appellant, Sarvesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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 appellant 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.

¶21

(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 of the appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Radhey Shyam Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shatruhan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibrar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another