Allowed

Sonu Yadav Alias Santi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024CRLA/4893/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail application filed by Sonu Yadav under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since investigation was complete and the co-accused was released, continued detention served no purpose, and set aside the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; appellant released on regular bail subject to bonds.

Sonu Yadav Alias Santi vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110258

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4893 of 2024 Appellant :- Sonu Yadav Alias Santi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶5

Sonu Yadav @ Santi-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to challenge the order dated 23.4.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, whereby his application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 42 of 2023, under Sections 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(5A), 3(2)(5), 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Chakar Nagar, District Etawah has been rejected.

¶6

The above F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of a complaint given by Amritlal, who alleged that he is a resident of Chakar Nagar, District Etawah and on 21.7.2022, his wife Reema aged about 26 years was enticed away by Sonu Yadav @ Santi and Banti Yadav, both sons of Malkhan Singh, and complainant's son namely, Krishna aged about 7 years is also with the mother. On 16.5.2023, Banti Yadav came to the village at around 6:00 p.m., and when complainant asked about his wife, he abused the complainant and told that his wife is with him and she will not come back. Banti Yadav abused the complainant in the name of his caste and gave him slaps. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 366, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶7

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶8

Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant through the above F.I.R. and no such occurrence as alleged had ever taken place. Learned counsel submits that relations between the complainant and his wife are strained and the couple is residing separately for a long time, therefore, no case as alleged by the complainant would be made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 9.10.2023 and submitted that she has not levelled any allegations against the appellant and it makes absolutely clear that complainant has falsely implicated the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant's brother, who is similarly situated has already been released on regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.11.2023, therefore, the appellant also deserves the similar concession. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Special Court, Etawah has not carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case while rejecting his bail application. He prays that impugned order dated 23.4.2024 be set aside and the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. be allowed.

¶9

The prayer is opposed by learned A.G.A., who has argued that complainant has specifically named the appellant in the alleged commission of crime and the allegations relating to the abuses and beatings to the complainant clearly makes out commission of offence punishable under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned A.G.A. submits that trial court has considered the material on record carefully while rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, and the order

¶10

dated 23.4.2024 is based upon correct appreciation of material, therefore, the said order does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

¶11

However, it is not disputed by learned A.G.A. that the similarly placed co-accused Banti has already been extended the concession of regular bail.

¶12

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that investigation in the case is complete and the co-accused namely, Banti has already been released on regular bail, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not serve any useful purpose. A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.4.2024 passed by Special Court, Etawah would show that trial court has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it, in accordance with law, therefore, the impugned order dated 23.4.2024 is not sustainable. The trial in the case is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time to conclude, thus, this Court finds that it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

¶13

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 23.4.2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Sonu Yadav @ Santi be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.7.2024/P.S.Parihar

¶16

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

Sonu Yadav Alias Santi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav Alias Santi 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

M/S Prathvi Construction vs State of Up and Another

Gullu Chauhan vs State of Up and Another

Hausala Prasad vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhoora Urf Nasim vs State of Up and Another

Iqram Teli @ Lala vs State of U.P. and Another

Haseen @ Bhura vs State of U.P. and Another