Allowed

Bheem @ Sunil Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024CRLA/5139/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal challenging a bail rejection, the High Court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail due to infirmities in the trial court's order and the nature of evidence. The Court quashed the rejection and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each.

Bheem @ Sunil Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164538

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5139 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Bheem @ Sunil Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Ramnath Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Bheem @ Sunil Pandey with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.2.2024 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.280 of 2023 under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

As per prosecution story, on 30.7.2023 at about 7 - 8 P.M. when the informant was returning home from his work, on the way the accused persons namely, Rishabh Shukla, Shishu Shukla and Shyam Bihari Shukla and 3 to 4 unknown persons stopped him, demanded extortion money and looted Rs.5000/- from him. When the informant protested, he was abused by his caste and all the accused persons made deadly assault upon him with lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. F.I.R. was lodged on 31.7.2023 and after initiation of prosecution, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the accused appellant was not named in the FIR and even in the statement of witnesses of fact recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no role of making assault is assigned to the present accused appellant. It is also submitted that accused Rishabh Shukla, Shishu Shukla

¶10

and Shyam Bihari Shukla were exonerated by the I.O. during the course of investigation whereas they were named as accused in this matter. It is also submitted that the injury report pertaining to the injured Saurabh reveals that he has sustained only one head injury and no x-ray or CT scan has been performed. It is further submitted that the name of the present appellant came on surface on the basis of a pen drive including a video clip but the same has not been prepared by the I.O. in accordance with relevant rules/ law. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 1.12.2023. It is further submitted that identically placed coaccused Vijay Shankar Dubey @ Baba Dubey has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. - 2700 of 2024 by order dated 6.5.2024. 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.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 23.2.2024.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

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 Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Bheem @ Sunil Pandey involved in case crime no.280 of 2023 under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar 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.

¶16

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(v) 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bheem @ Sunil Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem @ Sunil Pandey 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Shalini vs State of Up and Another

Vijendra Pal Singh vs State of Up Others

Nanka vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Yadav @ Vipan vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Dixit vs State of U.P. and Another