Allowed

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024CRLA/9350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court found the lower court erred in rejecting bail, setting aside the impugned order and releasing the appellant on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the bail rejection order was set aside; the appellant is released on bail with conditions.

Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182205

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9350 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Virendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Shiv Badan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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 4.9.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Chitrakoot passed in Bail Application No.908 of 2024, Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. filed in respect of S.T. No.441 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.95 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 304, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot.

¶8

The main submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant/applicant has been falsely implicated. As per the statement of the injured, main role of causing injury has been assigned to the co-accused Shailendra Singh @ Sheelu and Sunil Singh and the role of the appellant is distinguishable from them. It has also been submitted that immediate cause of death was cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction. Even in the statement of the eye-witnesses/wife of the informant, the main role of causing injury has been assigned to the co-accused. The role assigned to the appellant is of instigating the other co-accused. The appellant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2024 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.

¶9

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

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶11

counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellant-Virendra Singh involved in Crime No.95 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 304, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

¶22

m.a.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh 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

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu @ Kanhaiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinu Khair vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anita Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhoop Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Keshari Prasad Shukla vs State of Up and 4 Others