Allowed

Vijaypal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024CRLA/6868/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Allahabad High Court held that the lower court committed an error by denying bail when co-accused were already released. The court set aside the rejection and granted bail to the appellant subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139129

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6868 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vijaypal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

As per learned A.G.A. report, notice has been served upon respondent no. 2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the entire 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 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is general allegation of marpit with the injured Akshay and his other inmates. The incident is said to have taken place on 26.10.2022 but F.I.R. was lodged on 28.10.2022 after delay of two days without any explanation thereto. The injuries found on the person of the injured are simple in nature, therefore, case u/s 308 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against the appellant at all. It is further submitted that no any external or internal injury was found on the body of injured persons except complaint of pain but only on account of village rivalry arising out of dispute relating to murti visarjan this F.I.R. was lodged with false allegation against the appellant. Entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in the statement are false. The Court below 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. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. Appellant is in jail since 04.06.2024 having no any criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that other co-accused persons namely Santosh Kumar, Sunil, Mahendra Yadav & Manil have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 12144 of 2023 vide order dated 04.01.2024 and the case of the present appellant is on similar footing. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid, but could not dispute the fact that

¶11

other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on 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, the fact that other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, 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 dated 04.07.2024 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- Vijaypal involved in Case Crime No.164 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Chilhiya, District Siddharth 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

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 :- 29.8.2024 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijaypal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal 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

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jagardev Alias Chandrashekhar Pathak and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejas Pratap Singh vs State of Up and another

Vishal Mishra vs State of U.P.

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another