Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024CRLA/3417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a triple murder case. Court found contradictions in informant's statements, vague role assigned to appellant, his duty records showing presence at outpost, parity with co-accused on bail, and no criminal history. Appeal allowed; bail granted with conditions including witness protection safeguards.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3417 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ankit Sharma,Neeja Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sudhakar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned trial court arising out of Case Crime No.227 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316 I.P.C., and Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2) & 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sandipanghat, DistrictKaushambi. The applicant-appellant is in jail since 31.10.2023.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 09.01.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel and Shri Ankit Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

As per the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., the incident occurred on 15.09.2023 at 05:30 AM wherein three persons were killed by the accused. At the time of the incident the first informant claims that he was in the house in Chhabilawa and reached the spot after getting knowledge of the incident. He found that in a large number of police personnel were already present at the site.

¶11

The F.I.R. assigns a vague and a general role to the applicant in the assault.

¶12

The first informant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was at his sister's house and had gone to ease himself in the fields at the relevant point in time. He witnessed the incident returning home at 03:30 AM.

¶13

The first informant assigns a vague and general role to the applicant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Subsequently in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the first informant attributes the role of firing to principal offenders Amar Singh, Amit Singh, Anoop Singh and Yadvendra @ Guddu. The applicant has not been assigned any overt role in the incident in the said statement.

¶15

Material contradictions in the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., statements of the first informant under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶16

7.The applicant is a constable in PAC who was on duty at all relevant points in time. The presence of the applicant at his outpost at the time of the incident was reflected in official record. There is a presumption of correctness in favour of the said official records.

¶17

The applicant has been nominated only at the instigation of inimical parties in the village.

¶18

The CDR does not link the applicant with the offence of criminal conspiracy, inasmuch as, they do not depict the content of conversation.

¶19

The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 06.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3402 of 2024.

¶20

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶21

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶22

In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.

¶24

Let the appellant- Rajendra Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶25

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶26

(ii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶27

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after

¶28

due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶29

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶30

It is contended by Shri Sudhakar Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant that the first informant apprehends a threat to his life and that of his family from the applicant. If that be the case, the trial court shall make enquiries and provide the benefit of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 to the said witnesses till the conclusion of the trial if deem necessary.

¶31

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Dhananjai

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rachit Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. and Another

Committee of Management Rastriya Shiksha Sansathan Purv Madhamik Vidhyalaya vs State of Up and 2 Others

Deshraj and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another