Allowed

Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/73/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the trial court's refusal to grant bail. Finding that the trial court ignored the appellant's assigned role and lack of corroboration, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the appellant on bail subject to standard conditions and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of bail refusal dated 07.12.2023 set aside; appellant released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties onconditions of attending court and refraining from seeking adjournments.

Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21044

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 73 of 2024 Appellant :- Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Gupta,Mohammad Salim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kaushlendra Tewari,Suresh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No. 2043 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2023 U/s 147, 323, 506, 308, 302/34, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ramkot, District- Sitapur; for releasing appellant on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that role of 'reiki' is assigned to the applicant, except that, no relevant evidence is found in the case diary. He further submits that appellant was implicated by the police and except the present case, there is no criminal antecedent of the appellant. He further submits that co-accused persons, namely, Mohit Mishra and Samar Jay Singh @ Samar Singh have already been granted interim bail vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 248 of 2024 and Crl. Appeal No. 259 of 2024 respectively. He also submits that other co-accused person, namely, Ashutosh Pratap Singh has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 3268 of 2023. It is, thus, submitted that there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence, hence, appellant is entitled for bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of appellant. They do not dispute the fact that role of 'reiki' is assigned to the appellant.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other enclosures; it is evident from the record that role of only 'reiki' is assigned to the appellant. But all these relevant facts were not considered by the trial court while

¶10

rejecting the bail application of the appellant. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Sitapur is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the appellant- Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 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.

¶17

8. The trail court record be remitted back.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Arpan

¶19

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

Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mo. Raj Vs Union of India Thru. Narcotic Control Bureau (N.C.B.) Lko.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Sectt. Lucknow

Mohd. Afzal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko and 2 Others

Sajid Husain Khan vs Bal Mukund Prasad, District Inspector of School, District Hardoi

Krishna Kumar @ Karodi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others