Allowed

Mantu @ Apradhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024CRLA/6970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting the appellant's bail, holding that the appellant had made out a case for bail and the lower order suffered from infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the bail application is set aside. The appellant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165888

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6970 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mantu @ Apradhi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant today is taken on record.

¶7

Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. regarding service of notice to the informant/opposite party No.2 is taken on record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Deoria, in Case Crime 147 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Surauli, District Deoria.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that as per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., three accused persons are named and there is general allegation of marpit with the injured against the appellant and other co-accused persons. The injuries said to be caused on the person of the injured are simple in nature except a fracture on the head of the injured. No any lethal weapon was used in causing injuries on the injured person who fell on the ground and sustained injuries and F.I.R. was lodged with version that the appellant and other co-accused persons struck his head with electricity pole which is totally false. The criminal history shown against the appellant has been explained through supplementary affidavit which has been filed today. 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 fats and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in

¶10

passing the same. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provision of SC/ST Act. Appellant is in jail since 03.04.2024. It is further submitted that the case of the appellant is on similar footing to co-accused Nitesh @ Raftar Yadav whose Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024. 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

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶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. The impugned order dated 04.06.2024 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 set-aside .

¶15

Let the appellant- Mantu @ Apradhi involved in Case Crime No.0147 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Surauli, District Deoria, 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 :- 17.10.2024 Karan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mantu @ Apradhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu @ Apradhi 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

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

Vijaypal vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohanlal vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Singh @ Dablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Sachin and Another vs State of U.P. and Another