Jay Karan vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7594

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9373 of 2024

Appellant :- Jay Karan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- A Kumar Srivastava,Rafiqa Anees Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Jay Karan with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 25.1.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 227 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sandipanghat, District Kaushambi.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The prosecution case, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 15.9.2023 at 5.30 a.m. Horilal, Brajkali and Shivsaran, the father, sister and brother-in-law of the informant respectively were shot dead by the named accused persons when they were sleeping outside the house due to a land dispute. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.9.2023 at 12.21 p.m. and 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. It is also submitted that the co-accused Suresh Singh, having identical role, has been granted bail on 6.3.2024 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3402 of 2024. It is further submitted that no role of actual firing has been assigned to the appellant. As per material available on record, the present appellant was not named in the FIR, however, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant added the name of present appellant but subsequently in his statement recorded

¶10

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the informant misses the name of the present appellant. It is further submitted that the the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. As per F.I.R., indiscriminate firing was made by eight accused persons on spot but all the three deceased have received only one gunshot injury each which again falsifies the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the affidavit. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Arvind Singh has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. - 3803 of 2024 by order dated 25.9.2024. It is further submitted that the Court concerned 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 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 A.G.A. opposing the prayer submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased persons belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that ample and sufficient evidence has been collected against the appellant during investigation as a result of which charge sheet has been submitted against him. The co-accused Suresh Singh was granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court as he was an accused under Section 120-B IPC and the appellant cannot claim his parity. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶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 fact that co-accused, having similar role, has been granted bail, 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 of the appellant. 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 Jay Karan involved in case crime no. 227 of

¶16

2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sandipanghat, District Kaushambi 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.

¶17

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (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 :- 17.1.2025 Fhd

¶23

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

Jay Karan v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Karan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nanka vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumer Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Daraksha vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others