Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23589

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7842 of 2024

Appellant :- Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Singh Yadav 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. 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- Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.6.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghazipur in Bail Application No.1064 of 2024.

¶8

The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 29.1.2024 at about 4:50 P.M., a number of accused persons due to the old enmity made an assault upon the informant Bharat Kumar, who was sitting in the car alongwith Rakesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Ram Narayan @ Virendra, Pappu Kumar and Kanhaiya, with intention to kill and they all sustained grievous injuries by use of iron rod, hockey etc. After lodging of the F.I.R., investigation started and the injured persons were medically examined.

¶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. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the criminal history has been explained in the affidavit. 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 6.5.2024. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Sonu Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. - 2214 of 2024 by order dated 6.5.2024. It is lastly submitted that

¶10

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 6.6.2024.

¶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 appellant - Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav involved in Case Crime No. no.20 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 325, 342, 427, 120-B IPC and Sections 3(1)da, 3 (1) dha, 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Muhammadabad, District Ghazipur.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 fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(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.

¶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

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

¶22

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Fhd

¶23

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

Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases