Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024CRLA/6195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a bail rejection order under the SC/ST Act and IPC. Setting aside the Special Court's dismissal, the Court held the appellant had established innocence and lack of specific role involvement, releasing him on bail with security.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; verification of sureties ordered prior to release.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142556

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6195 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Ajay Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.5.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghazipur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.20 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 325, 342, 307, 427, 120-B IPC and Sections 3 (1) da, 3 (1) dha, 3(2)5A S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur.

¶7

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

¶8

The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 29.1.2024 at about 4:50 P.M., a number of accused persons due to the old enmity made an assault upon the informant Bharat Kumar, who was sitting in the car alongwith Rakesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Ram Narayan @ Virendra, Pappu Kumar and Kanhaiya, with intention to kill and they all sustained grievous injuries by use of iron rod, hockey etc. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation started and the injured persons were medically examined.

¶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 also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that as per allegations made in the F.I.R. and even in the statements given by the eyewitnesses of the injured persons, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that none of the injured persons out of a total of five injured persons has assigned any specific role of assault or specific weapon to the present appellant. It is further submitted that although there are five injured persons, but as a

¶10

matter of fact, all of them have received only simple injuries. It is further submitted that the injured Kanhaiya was referred for x-ray for one of his injuries, but in the x-ray report, no fracture was found. It is further submitted that the prosecution has come forward with a case that some video was prepared by co-accused persons in respect of the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that co-accused Rudhir Yadav has prepared some video which was retrieved from the co-accused Ashu Chaubey and the same has not been certified according to relevant law and Rules to establish the truthfulness of any electronic evidence. It is further submitted that the appellant has explained his criminal history of one case in the affidavit. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that coaccused Sonu Yadav, who has been named in the FIR has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. -2214 of 2024 by order dated 6.5.2024. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 8.5.2024. It is also 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 A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. However, they could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that in the injury reports of all the injured persons, the injuries have been found as simple in nature and even in the supplementary report of injured Kanhaiya, the injury regarding which the x-ray was performed, was also found simple in nature.

¶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 Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

¶15

rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Ajay Yadav involved in case crime no.20 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 325, 342, 307, 427, 120-B IPC and Sections 3 (1) da, 3 (1) dha, 3(2)5A S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur, 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Fhd

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu vs State of Up Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnawaz @ Plastik vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Pal Singh vs State of Up Others

Shalini vs State of Up and Another

Nanka vs State of U.P. and Another