Allowed

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024CRLA/4444/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting bail, directing its release on a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; impugned bail rejection order set aside.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123840

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4444 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Pankaj Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kranti Kiran Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I 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 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chitrakoot in Case Crime No. 02 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police StationBargarh, District Chitrakoot. The applicant-appellant is in jail since 13.01.2024.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 05.04.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Kranti Kiran

¶10

Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record and which the trial court neglected to consider, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The victim disappeared on 06.01.2024. No missing report was got registered by her family members. The FIR was got lodged on 10.01.2024 after an unknown body was sighted near the house of one Mahanand Mishra.

¶12

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶13

Delay of four days in lodgement of FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶14

The applicant was nominated in the confessional statement of one co-accused Prince Tiwari made before the police authorities while in their custody. The said statement in so far as it implicates the applicant is inadmissible in evidence.

¶15

There is no direct evidence or eye witness of the incident.

¶16

The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.

¶17

The applicant was not last seen in the company of the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter.

¶18

No incriminating article has been recovered from the

¶19

applicant.

¶20

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶21

The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused person-Dilip Pandey, who has been granted bail by this Court on 05.06.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4635 of 2024.

¶22

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

¶23

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 dated 05.04.2024 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶24

The appeal is allowed.

¶25

Let the appellant- Pankaj Yadav 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed 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

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Vandit

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj 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

Dayashankar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Yashwant @ Praduman Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Tirath Nishad@ Tirath Lal vs State of U.P. ANOther

Charu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saurabh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another