Allowed

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2024CRLA/1053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed by Satish Kumar Sharma seeking bail in a criminal case under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the impugned order refusing bail, noting the dispute appears civil in nature and another co-accused implicated via the appellant's statement was already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 15.03.2024 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties subject to eight conditions.

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34782

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1053 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Pankaj Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Case Crime No. 334 of 2021, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section (3)(1) (da) 3(1)(dha) 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safdarganj, DistrictBarabanki.

¶8

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of false implication and abuse of process of law.

¶9

Elaborating aforesaid, appellant's counsel says that to a civil dispute, cloak of criminal offence has been given by the informant. In continuation, it is stated that co-accused Ram Naresh is real brother of the informant and co-sharer of Gata No.445 having an area of 0.1660 hectare and as per the FIR, Ram Naresh has sold his share to one Raghvendra Kumar Mishra (named in the FIR) without there being any proper partition as per law and, therefore, the informant being aggrieved, lodged an FIR implicating Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Shivam Verma and Ram Naresh. Thus, the appellant was not named in the FIR by the informant. The name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of coaccused Ram Naresh (real brother of the informant and cosharer of the land) and also in the statement of co-accused Shakeel @ Pauwa and thereafter, the appellant was apprehended/arrested on 20.08.2023 and since then he is in jail. It is stated that statement of co-accused is not admissible in the evidence. Reference has been made to Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶10

It is further stated that on a single arrest, the concerned police

¶11

has implicated the applicant in 13 cases. In this regard, reference has been made in paragraphs 14 and 15 filed in support of application seeking bail filed in the present appeal. The averments made in paragraphs 14 and 15 referred to above have not been disputed by learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant.

¶12

It is lastly stated that taking note of the entire facts and circumstances particularly the transaction between Ram Naresh and Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, the co-accused Ram Naresh in whose statement the name of the appellant surfaced, has already been granted bail by the trial court, which is not disputed by the learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant, the appellant is entitled to bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶14

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents.

¶15

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the story setup in the FIR which prima facie shows that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute as also that coaccused Ram Naresh, in whose statement the name of the appellant surfaced, has already been released on bail and also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶16

order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Case Crime No. 334 of 2021, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section (3) (1)(Da) 3(1)(Dha) 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safdarganj, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the appellant Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶19

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶20

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶22

(v) 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

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶24

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶25

(viii) 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.

¶26

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶28

Order Date :- 6.5.2024 Ashutosh

¶29

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

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt Kevla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Tribhuwan Nath Vs Nayab Tehsildar Bihar, Tehsil- Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Shiv Devi vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya and 5 Others

Mano Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector/ D.M. Amethi and 3 Others

Munendra Singh vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Western, District Hardoi and 2 Others