Allowed

Govind and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025CRLA/159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC/ST Act Section 14-A(2) criminal appeal allowed; bail granted; bail-rejection order dated 18.12.2024 of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Siddharth Nagar set aside; Case Crime No. 205 of 2024, P.S. Uska Bazar; BNS Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109, 352, 117(2); SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V); alleged assault with lathi, danda, saria, sabbal, kulhari with intention to kill

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellants Govind, Vishal, Manoj, Bhotu, Prakash and Pooja in Case Crime No. 205 of 2024 (P.S. Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each

Govind and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46653

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 159 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Govind And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants - Govind, Vishal, Manoj, Bhotu, Prakash and Pooja with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.205 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 109, 352, 117 (2)

¶9

B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(Va) and 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶10

As per F.I.R., on 1.11.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., the named accused persons including the present accused appellants with a common object made an assault upon the father, brother and neighbour of the informant with the aid of lathi, danda, saria, sabbal and kulhari with intention to kill, who sustained multiple injuries in the said incident.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case

¶12

against the present appellants. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the appellants. It is also submitted that the co-accused namely, Kamlesh, Suggriv, Pradeep, Urmila and Rakesh have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2752 of 2025, 526 of 2025, 2705 of 2025 & 44794 of 2024 vide orders dated 27.1.2025, 17.01.2025, 24.01.2025 & 24.01.2025, respectively and the role of the present appellants is not distinguishable to that of co-accused, hence, they are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the learned Special Court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record in right perspective and bail application was rejected in a cursory manner. It is further submitted that the appellants no.1 to 6 are languishing in jail since 3.11.2024, 5.11.2024, 23.11.2024, 5.11.2024, 5.11.2024 and 23.11.2024 respectively. Criminal history of the appellants has been explained. It is also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 appellants have 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the appellants - Govind, Vishal, Manoj, Bhotu, Prakash and Pooja involved in Case Crime No.205 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 109, 352, 117 (2) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध), 3(2)(Va) and 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste

¶18

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharth Nagar, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

(v) The appellants 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 ss

¶26

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

Govind and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind and 5 Others 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

Punam Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwana Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Daadu @ Chelaram vs State of Up

Jitendra Singh Patel vs State of U.P. and Another