Jayram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137005

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4526 of 2025

Appellant :- Jayram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra,Vandana Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 430 of 2024, under Sections 304, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gulriha, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Prosecution case is that incident took place on 21.05.2024 for which an FIR was lodged on 23.05.2024, as per which, appellant along with other accused persons named in the FIR have beaten the father of the informant with iron rod and danda and also abused him with caste indicative language.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellantapplicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons including the appellant. It is further submitted that only general role of assault and exhortation has been assigned to the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 25.05.2024 having no criminal history. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report three injuries were shown on the dead body of the deceased whereas four assailants have been alleged in the FIR, however, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶10

On the other hand, AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶12

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

¶13

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 liable to be allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant Jayram, 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.

¶16

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶22

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶23

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶24

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

¶25

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.8.2025 RavindraKSingh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jayram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayram 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