Vijendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55676

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1223 of 2025

Appellant :- Vijendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Kamlesh Kumar,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Vijendra Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 74 of 2024 under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Sections 3(2)(5A) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha.

¶7

Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶8

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

¶9

One F.I.R. was earlier lodged under Sections 307, 354, 323 IPC and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, however, during investigation no offence under Sections 307 and 354 IPC was found to be made by the I.O. and accordingly charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against the appellant. It is also submitted that no incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution and during course of investigation the I.O. collected absolutely no evidence against the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 and 354 IPC. The witnesses have made contradictory statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused Gajraj Singh and Shoorver Singh have been granted bail by allowing their appeal by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal

¶11

No.11437 of 2024. The case of the applicant is not distinguishable. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.1.2025. The Court concerned 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. 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

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶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, role of the appellant and the fact that no offence under Sections 307 and 354 IPC was found by the I.O. during investigation, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the appellant - Vijendra Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajat Rawat vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Shiv Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rinee Dobhal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Mukesh Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Prakhar Awasthi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others