Allowed

Mukesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024CRLA/3151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judge rejected anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act for appeals to High Court court discussed injury report s coc-accused file following s 438 Cr PC applying principle private cases grant protection appellant on furnishing surety and personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties in like amount with specific undertakings.

Mukesh Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3151 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Mukesh Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Prakash Awasthi,Aadarsh Mishra,Vashu Deo Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Vide order dated 04.10.2024, notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2, however, compliance report is awaited, as appears from Office Report dated 17.10.2024.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant namely Mukesh Dwivedi under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 6996/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V), of SC/ST Act, P.S.- PGI, District- Lucknow, whereby, anticipatory bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

It is submitted that in the prosecution case that on 14.05.2024, stone pelting was taking place between the two rival groups. It was a free fight. The complainant side was the aggressor.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complainant side was the aggressor. It is submitted that from the side of the appellant, three persons are inured whereas no one was injured from the complainant side. The appellant's both the legs have been broken. Injury report of the injured is on record. Instead of arresting the culprits from the other side, police has made the appellant as an escape goat.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the above aspects of the matter, injury report of the appellant as also the undertaking given on behalf of the appellant that he will cooperate in the investigation/trial, prima facie no one appears to be injured from the side of the complainant, charge sheet has been filed against the co-accused persons, prima facie it appears that the appellant may not have committed the offence, injury caused on the appellant side, perusal of the record, as also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2020) 5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the appellant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Let the accused-appellant- Mukesh Dwivedi be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) That the accused-appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶15

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶16

(iii) That the accused-appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant's 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 observations made in this order.

¶18

List/put up this appeal on 07.11.2024 alongwith service report. In the meantime, learned AGA shall file objection/counter affidavit in the matter.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Arun/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Dwivedi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Leela Joshi Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Deptt. Lko.

Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Namami Gange and Rural Water Supply and 5 Others

Ashish Dwivedi Vs U.P. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Akansha Alias Vini vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Govt. of U.P. Lko. U.P. and 6 Others

Balram Chandra Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Kumar Vajpeyi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Deptt. Lko and 3 Others