Allowed

Shrawan @ Sarwan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024CRLA/6471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal involved a bail application rejected by Special Judge. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and granting bail to the appellant charged under the SC/ST Act and various IPC sections, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set-aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Shrawan @ Sarwan vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164247

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6471 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shrawan @ Sarwan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ranjan Dhwaj Tiwari 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, Sri Ghansyam Kesarwani, 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 order dated 06.06.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Maharajganj by which rejecting the bail application of the appellant in Bail Application No. 618 if 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 325, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(S) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

¶9

The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the no offence in S.C./ST. Act is made out. It has been further submitted that the the alleged incident took place within the premises of the house and was not within the public view and is covered by the observations made in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, AIR (2020) SC 5584 . It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is languishing in jail since 06.06.2024 having no criminal history.

¶10

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 counsel for the respondent as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶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, 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 Shrawan @ Sarwan involved in Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 325, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(S) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj 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 :- 16.10.2024

¶23

Monika

¶24

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

Shrawan @ Sarwan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrawan @ Sarwan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr Tushar Kaloniya and Another vs State of Up and Another

Hoshiyar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kalamuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer Singh vs State of Up and 5 Others

Arjun Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others