Sanjeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13378

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5991 of 2024

Appellant :- Sanjeev Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dheeraj Singh (Bohra) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sanjeev with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.6.2024 and 4.6.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddh Nagar in Bail Application Nos. 2120 of 2024 and 2287 of 2024.

¶8

On the false pretext of providing job the present appellant befooled the informant and some other persons and on his direction some amount was deposited in the bank account of Surendra Singh and Niraj Kumar and subsequently he also took cash rupees for the same purpose and false joining letter was also procured by him but, however, no person who had paid the money got employment. FIR was lodged on 7.6.2023 whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 23.10.2022.

¶9

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 him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that although a charge sheet has been submitted against the present accused appellant but as a matter of fact the present appellant has not taken any amount of money from any person who claims to be aggrieved in this matter. It is also submitted that the bank transaction for depositing the money has been taken place in the bank account of Surendra Singh and Niraj Kumar. It is also submitted that rest of the amount is said to be paid in cash by some other person to the appellant but there is no written document in respect of the same and there is no independent witness for paying

¶10

the money to the appellant himself. It is further submitted that during investigation notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been served to the appellant and he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 3.6.2024. 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.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail 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 dated 3.6.2024 and 4.6.2024 but however, he could not dispute this factual aspect of this matter that no money has been deposited in the bank account of the present appellant.

¶12

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.

¶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 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant - Sanjeev involved in Case Crime No. 154 of 2023 under Sections 504, 506, 420 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jewar, DistrictGautam Buddh Nagar 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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 :- 27.1.2025 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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