Allowed

Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024CRLA/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act challenging rejection of bail in a case of alleged murder and caste atrocity. The court noted the trial would not conclude soon and co-accused had been enlarged on bail, set aside the impugned order and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail-rejection order dated 24.08.2023 set aside; appellant Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29697

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 130 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gaurav Singh,Sajjad Husain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan,Mohd.Anas Siddiqui,Toshendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 50 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 504, 506, 120-B, I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is next submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused persons namely Sarvesh Singh @ Lucky, Vishal Singh have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2706 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 2749 of 2023. (Photocopy of the bail order provided by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.) 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 18.05.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 oppose the prayer of the appellant and submits that after detail investigation, charge sheet has been filed. However, they do not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons namely Sarvesh Singh @ Lucky, Vishal Singh, have already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned order as well as other relevant documents including the bail orders, it is evident that the co-accused persons namely Sarvesh Singh @ Lucky, Vishal Singh, have already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

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. Impugned order dated

¶12

24.08.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 50 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 89 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 504, 506, 120-B, I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant- Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.4.2024

¶25

Jyoti/-

¶26

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

Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Niranjan Gaur @ Niranjan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankita Verma and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vimal Singh Solanki and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Roshni and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Ravi Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and Another