Disposed

Ram Vijay Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024CRLA/3806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act against a cognizance order was not pressed on merits; counsel sought only a direction that the appellant's surrender-based bail application be decided expeditiously per Satyendra Kumar Antil. Appeal disposed accordingly with 30-day no-coercive-action protection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide appellant's bail application expeditiously on surrender within 30 days; no coercive action during that period.

Ram Vijay Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153977

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3806 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Vijay Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rajesh Babu appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, preferred vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') has been filed against the summoning/cognizance order dated 05.02.2024 passed by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Mau in Special Case No.112 of 2024 (State Vs. Ram Awadh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.397 of 2023 under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506, 452 of IPC and Section 3(1)da SC/ST Act Police Station Muhammadabad District Mau including the charge sheet dated 31/12/2023.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for appellant submitted that he is not pressing the appeal on merits and confined his prayer only to the extent that the present appeal may be disposed of finally with a direction to the court concerned that in case appellant surrenders before it and applies for bail, his bail application may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sateyndra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & others reported in [2021 (10) SCC 773] to which learned counsel for opposite parties have no objection.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal appeal is finally disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that in case, the appellant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the Apex Court judgement passed in the case of Sateyndra Kumar Antil (supra).

¶10

However, it is made clear that till the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant herein.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Rakesh

¶12

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

Ram Vijay Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Vijay Yadav @ Bahadur Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pushpendra @ Dhiru and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Narayan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Babban Sahu vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shiv Prakash Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Kamla Joshi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Kushwaha vs State of Up and Another