Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51848

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1066 of 2025 Appellant :- Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rishi Kumar Prajapati,Virendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant- Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte against the bail rejection order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jaunpur and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. C-9 of 2003, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 IPC & Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present case belongs to the year 2003 and the appellant was on bail but since he is poor person he went to a distant place to earn his livelihood. It is also submitted that further appellant was informed by his counsel that the case has now been finished and he needs not come to the court and that was the reason he remained absent for a period of about four and half months. Subsequently, he came to know about the pendency of trial but meanwhile coercive process was issued against him by the court concerned and the accused appellant surrendered before the court concerned and now for a period of about four and half months he is languishing in jail. He is now ready and willing to comply with all the conditions of bail and if bail is granted to him, he further undertake to assist the trial. 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.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the appellant- Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte involved in Case Crime No. C-9 of 2003, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506, 34 IPC & Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur 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.

¶13

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence are exempted.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Rmk.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Neelam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripa Shankar vs State of U.P.and 5 Others