Amar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40472

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6795 of 2024

Appellant :- Amar Singh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi 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. Despite sufficient service of notice, none appears for the informant. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken 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 - Amar Singh Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.5.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No. 1470 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 584 of 2023 under Sections 379, 411, 323, 304 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Powayan, DistrictShahjahanpur.

¶8

A motorcycle, mobile and cash rupees of the informant/ deceased were stolen and when he asked for these articles from three accused persons they made an assault upon him, who sustained serious injuries in the chest and abdomen and was taken to the hospital but subsequently could not survive. After lodging of the FIR investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet.

¶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 the accused appellant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that even in the statement of informant/ deceased when he was alive, the name of the present appellant has not been taken by him. It is further submitted that the police has recovered the motor cycle on the pointing out of the present appellant but the story of the said recovery is false and concocted and no reliable or

¶10

independent witness was there to prove the factum of recovery of motorcycle. 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. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the affidavit. Appellant is in jail since 1.9.2023. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Chhotu @ Navneet has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.- 2321 of 2024 by order dated 15.4.2024. 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 21.5.2024.

¶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 above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 witness.

¶18

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date

¶19

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 :- 20.3.2025 Fhd

¶24

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

Amar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

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