Allowed

Shiv Sagar Yadav @ Siyare @ Shikari v. state of up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2024CRLA/3017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging rejection of bail in an IPC sections 302/201/120-B murder case resting on circumstantial evidence. Noting prolonged incarceration and prior bail granted to co-accused Ankur Maurya, the court found the lower court failed to appreciate the record, set aside the bail rejection and released the appellant on conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Order rejecting bail set aside; appellant to be released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions including non-tampering and presence at trial.

Shiv Sagar Yadav @ Siyare @ Shikari Vs state of up Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:85508

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3017 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Yadav @ Siyare @ Shikari Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avinash Pandey,Rahul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. Notice to informant is served as per instruction received by learned A.G.A.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside order dated 11.3.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail No.127 of 2024 arising out of case crime No. 148 of 2021 I.P.C. under sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Manikpur, district Pratapgarh.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 3.8.2021 at about 5.00p.m., son of the informant Dharmendra Saroj aged about 29 years moved to his house from Kanpur, however, he did not reach home. It is further alleged that on 6.8.2021, wife of the deceased went to police station and there she identified the dead body which was found in Gange river. On 7.8.2021, the family members of the deceased also identified the dead body in marchery.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. On the basis of the statement of one Mahendra Saroj who has alleged that on the date of incident, he saw the applicant sitting on a motorcycle, the applicant has been implicated. The deceased was also sitting with the coaccused Ankur Maurya who was riding the motorcycle.

¶10

It is submitted that the co-accused Ankur Maurya has been granted bail by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Pratapgarh vide order dated 4.2.2022 passed in Bail No.39 of 2022. The applicant claims parity and submits

¶11

that his case is on better footing than that of the coaccused Ankur Maurya who was riding the motorcycle. The applicant was not riding the motorcycle; rather he was simply sitting thereon. The first information report has been lodged after delay of eight days. Even the statement of Mahendra Saroj has been recorded after 12 days. There is no independent witness of the joint recovery shown from the three accused persons including the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.8.2021

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of incarceration, the case is of circumstantial evidence, the co-accused Ankur Maurya has been released on bail by the trial Court, judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra (2024)9 SCC 813, without commenting upon merit of the case, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record.

¶15

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below is liable to be and is hereby set aside.

¶16

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

¶17

Let the appellant/applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant 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

¶21

or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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.

¶24

(vi) In case the applicant 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 applicant 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.12.2024 kkb/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Sagar Yadav @ Siyare @ Shikari v. state of up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Sagar Yadav @ Siyare @ Shikari v. state of up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Ors.

Lukman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Gaurav Mishra @ Prachand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Sandeep Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Priyanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Shivam Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.