Allowed

Satish Sharma Alias Kaluwa v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024CRLA/6853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal seeking bail against a rejection order under the SC/ST Act. Upon reviewing the post-mortem report and confession, the court found infirmity in the lower court's decision and granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions preventing tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

Satish Sharma Alias Kaluwa vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:172710

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6853 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Satish Sharma Alias Kaluwa Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA for the State, is taken on record.

¶7

This is a revised call. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.

¶8

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

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the bail rejection order dated 19.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 977 of 2024 (Satish Sharma @ Kaluwa vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 09 of 2024 under Sections 304, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahr.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated on the basis of his confessional statement. It has also been submitted that the deceased met with an accident, when the co-accused Manish pushed him from motorcycle due to which the deceased fell on the ground and had received injuries. As per the post mortem report, the immediate cause of death was neurogenic shock as a result of ante mortem head injury. Initially, final report was submitted. Subsequently, on the basis of further investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. Though there is an evidence of last seen but from the confessional statement and from the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it transpires that the deceased fell on the ground when he was pushed by the co-accused and had received

¶11

injuries. The appellant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2024 and there is no criminal history against the appellant except the present case. 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.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

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.

¶14

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. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the appellant-Satish Sharma @ Kaluwa involved in Case Crime No. 09 of 2024 under Sections 304, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahr 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.

¶17

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

¶18

The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

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

¶20

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

The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Puspendra

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Sharma Alias Kaluwa v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Sharma Alias Kaluwa 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

Urmila Devi vs State of Up 6 Others

Radharaman and Other vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and another

Firoz @ Chotu vs State of U.P. and Another

Indresh Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another