Allowed

Shashank Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2024CRLA/482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail under Sections 147-149, 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Court granted bail on parity with co-accused with identical roles already released, noting charge unframed since April 2023 custody.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant Shashank Singh released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Shashank Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73641

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 482 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shashank Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandan Srivastava,Rajneesh Kumar Singh,Ravi Singh,Viresh Pratap Singh,Yogesh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Firoz Ahmad Khan,Mohd. Shafiq

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant with a prayer for quashing the impugned Bail Rejection Order dated 10.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 28/23 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 089/2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 504, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Maharajganj, DistrictAyodhya.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity along with others. As per the prosecution case, the appellant and other associates assaulted Dushyant Kumar with iron rod, lathi and danda .

¶9

It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, involvement of Vishal Singh and Sarvesh Singh alias Lucky was also found on the basis of identical role of causing injury to the deceased. The aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Vishal Singh has already been granted bail vide order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2749 of 2023 and Sarvesh Singh alias Lucky has also been granted bail vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2706 of 2023 under the provisions of Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act.

¶10

It is next submitted that till today, charge has not been framed and the appellant is in jail since 13.04.2023, who has falsely

¶11

been implicated in one case, in which, he has not been summoned till today.

¶12

It is lastly submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial of the present proceedings, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. They jointly submit that the appellant was named in the F.I.R. However, they do not dispute the fact that other co-accused persons, namely, Vishal Singh and Sarvesh Singh alias Lucky, having identical role, have already been enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant are unable to dispute on the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant about the fact that charge has not been framed till today.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the appellant is in jail since 13.04.2023, but charge has not been framed till today. The aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Vishal Singh and Sarvesh Singh alias Lucky, having identical role, have already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, it is a fit case for bail.

¶16

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The impugned Bail Rejection Order dated 10.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, District- Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the appellant- Shashank Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Arpan

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shashank Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko 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

Bablu Vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko.

Mohit Kumar Vs Smt. Ankita Singh 1ST, Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division/a.C.J.M. Gonda

Syed Naseer Husain (F.I.R. Name Is Husain Rizvi) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sey. Home Lko. and Another

Premnath vs Ram Kewal Tripathi, Sub Divisional Officer, Judicial, Amethi

Nikhil Manglik vs Surya Pal Gangwar, Collector / District Magistrate, Lucknow

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others