Allowed

Suneel Yadav @ Suneel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024CRLA/2909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. Finding the prosecution story doubtful and noting the appellant had been in jail since June 2024, the court quashed the impugned order and granted bail subject to ten conditions, including cooperation with prosecution and no tampering.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties on ten conditions.

Suneel Yadav @ Suneel vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73116

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2909 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Suneel Yadav @ Suneel Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Gupta,Richa Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the private opposite party and Sri V.K.Sahi, learned A.A.G. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Hardoi in Bail Application No.1685/2024 (Suraj Yadav and Others Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Crime Crime No. 174 of 2024, under Sections 452/304/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2) (Va), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station-Behta Gokul, District- Hardoi, whereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶8

While pressing the present appeal and assailing the impugned order, under appeal, dated 08.08.2024, whereby the application seeking bail preferred by the appellant was rejected by the trial court, it is stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶9

It is further stated that according to the story of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR, the basis of the pending criminal proceedings, i.e. the FIR No. 0174 lodged on 30.07.2024 at 00.09 hours (mid night of 29.05.2024) under Sections 452/304/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, at about 6 PM on 29.05.2024 the persons named in the FIR (accused) namely Suneel Yadav alias Suneel (appellant), Suraj (father of the appellant), Nirbhan Yadav (brother of the appellant), Kallu (cousin of the appellant) assaulted the deceased Prem Chand with Lathi and Danda and made casteist remarks and on account of blow of Lathi the deceased Prem Chand sustained injuries including fatal injury over his scalp and the informant-Prem Kanti (wife of the deceased) and cousin of the deceased Ram Kishore were also beaten by the accused persons, named in the FIR.

¶10

It is also stated that in the FIR specific role(s) have not been assigned/attributed to the accused named in the FIR.

¶11

It is further stated that from the story narrated in the FIR as also the statement(s) of witnesses of prosecution recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation namely Prem Kanti/informant, Neeraj Kumar eye witness, injured Ram Kishore, it is establish that specific role has not been attributed to any of the accused named in the FIR.

¶12

It is further stated that in fact there is no eye witness of the story of the prosecution. It is in view of the place of occurrence indicated by the

¶13

prosecution as also the fact that according to FIR the appellant and other co-accused have also assaulted the informant and one Ram Kishore, cousin of the deceased Prem Chand, but the informant-wife of deceased has not sustained any injury in the incident and in so far as the injury of Ram Kishore is concerned it appears that Ram Kishore sustained injury in some other incident as he was medically examined on 31.05.2024, else he ought to have been examined on 30.05.2024 itself.

¶14

It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution is doubtful for the reason that in fact Suneel, present appellant, was not present at the situs of the crime as he was present at his place of job i.e. Petrol Pump namely Awasthi Petroleum Kisan Sewa Kendra situated at Shiroman Nagar (Sandi Shahabad Road) District Hardoi, which is apparent from Annexure No. 8 to the present appeal.

¶15

In continuation it is stated that no doubt that plea of alibi is the plea of defence however, at this stage it can be taken note of only to consider that the story of the prosecution is doubtful.

¶16

It is further stated that in the incident all the main male family members have been implicated by the informant, who prima-facie appears to be not present at spot.

¶17

It is lastly submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2024 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

¶18

In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Sri V.K.Sahi, learned A.A.G. for the State and Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the private opposite party, opposed the prayer for bail. It is stated that deceased Prem Chand and injured Ram Kishore, were brutely assaulted by all the accused persons and injured witness Ram Kishore has indicated the names of all the accused persons. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant including the fact that injured witness has not assigned/attributed specific role to the accused-persons.

¶20

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶21

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.A.G., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the fact that general role has been assigned to all accused-persons and also that the appellant is in jail since 01.06.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, in the light of the facts indicated above this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶22

Order dated 08.08.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Hardoi in Bail Application No.1685/2024 (Suraj Yadav and Others Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Crime Crime No. 174 of 2024, under Sections 452/304/323/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station-

¶23

Behta Gokul, District- Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

¶24

Let the appellant- Suneel Yadav @ Suneel be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Jyoti/-

¶36

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

Suneel Yadav @ Suneel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Yadav @ Suneel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Suresh Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Divyansh Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Poojan Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Tabish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ashok Tiwari @ Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Mukesh Nath Sinha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secy. U.P. Lko. and Others