Allowed

Shyamu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024CRLA/4384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The court found the lower order faulty and allowed the appellant to be released on bail upon furnishing bond and sureties and complying with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145985

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4384 of 2024 Appellant :- Shyamu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that notice has been served on the informant/respondent no.2.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶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 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No. 2, Etawah.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per version in the F.I.R. in this case victim was enticed away by the present appellant with his real brother Ramu. Further submitted that after recovery of the victim her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Magistrate in which she made statement against the present appellant to take her away to Etawah, thereafter, to some other place i.e. Pune then returned back to Gwalior and from there her father took her to the police station, it shows that she was volunteer. So far as the commission of rape is concerned with the victim, it cannot be said to be possible by two real brothers. Entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement are false. The Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. Appellant is in jail since 11.01.2024 having no criminal antecedent. 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

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record 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 version in F.I.R., she was volunteer and the order passed by learned Special Judge, 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 dated 09.04.2024 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

Let the appellant- Shyamu involved in Case Crime No.249 of 2023, under Section 366, 376-D I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST(P.A.) Act, Police Station Saifai, District Etawah, 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 :- 9.9.2024/Anurag Singh

¶22

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

Shyamu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamu 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

Similar cases

Kaushinder vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ziya Firdaus vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishabh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Naim and Another vs State of U.P. and Another