Keshav Chauhan @ Keshav Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5786

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2581 of 2024 Appellant :- Keshav Chauhan @ Keshav Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Suhail Kashif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. filed counter affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

¶9

As per the office report dated 26.11.2024 notice issued to opposite party No.2 returned unserved. The concerned post-mant has noted on the envelope that the opposite party No.2 is in Ahmedabad and refused to take the notice, thus the service of notice upon opposite party No.2 is deemed sufficient.

¶10

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated dated 05.08.2024 passed by the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Case Crime No.272 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity. It is further submitted that the injuries said to be caused to the injured are not grievous in nature and the case does not come within the purview of Section 326 I.P.C. There was a fracture on nasal bone, which cannot be said to be the result of injury caused with an Axe. There is no criminal history against the appellant and no any specific role has been assigned to him.

¶12

2

¶13

It is also submitted that three persons were named in the F.I.R. by the informant, but later on he exonerated co-accused Amit that he was not present at home. It makes the whole prosecution case doubtful and concocted. The Court below 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 also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 25.07.2024. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 period appellant remained in jail, having no criminal antecedent, 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 05.08.2024 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be setaside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the appellant- Keshav Chauhan @ Keshav Ram involved in Case Crime No.272 of 2024, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 326 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki 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.

¶19

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

¶20

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

3

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 28.1.2025

¶27

Arvind

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Keshav Chauhan @ Keshav Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Chauhan @ Keshav Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 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