Allowed

Rohit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024CRLA/5442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case involving Sections 308, 323, 325, 342, 504 IPC and SC/ST Act offences. Court held the appellant had made out a case for bail, set aside the trial court's rejection order, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties; bail rejection order set aside.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:188468

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5442 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Rohit Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Awashesh Kumar,Kalp Dev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

List revised. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶7

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

¶8

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 17.05.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mau in Bail Application No. 1045 of 2024 (Rohit Gupta vs. State of U.P.) relating to Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 342, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mau.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It has further submitted that as per injury report except injury nos. 1 and 2 caused by hard and blunt object, rest of the injuries found to be simple in nature. As per X-ray Report, evidence of bony fracture seen. It has also been submitted that during trial, the first informant and the injured both have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. Appellant is languishing in jail since 13.05.2024 having no criminal history. 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.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record

¶12

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, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The learned 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 set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Rohit Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 342, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mau be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

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

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 :- 2.12.2024

¶23

Monika

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Gupta 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

Rajveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunam vs State of U.P. and Another

Beena vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Satyendra Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni Devi vs State of Up and 5 Others