Allowed

Meraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024CRLA/3765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust with an SC/ST charge. The alleged embezzled amount was returned via RTGS. Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the bail rejection order and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3765 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Meraj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Meenendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Ram Milan Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Affidavit of compliance filed by learned counsel for the appellant today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State, Sri Ram Miland Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 11.3.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Banda in Bail Application No. 155 of 2024 (Meraj vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 949 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant the bail application of the appellant was rejected mainly on the ground that Rs. 2,00,000/- was embezzled by the appellant and was disbursed in his account. Learned counsel for the appellant states that now the said amount has been returned by his brother Javed through RTGS on 05.06.2024 in favour of first informant Rohit Srivas. The trial is yet to conclude. The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.1.2024 and there is no criminal history against the appellant except the present case. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record

¶11

including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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.

¶13

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

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the appellant-Meraj involved in Case Crime No. 949 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 Puspendra

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraj v. State of U.P. 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

Vinod and 10 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Devanshi Saxena vs State of Up and 5 Others

Prem Nath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Aysha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Tannu Alias Tamanna and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Farheen Bano and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others