Allahabad High Court
Tinku @ Gyanendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 November, 2019
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3656 of 2019 Appellant :- Tinku @ Gyanendra Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 15.4.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 1011 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 155 of 2019, under Section 371, IPC and 3(1)(Ja) of SC/ST Act and Section 4/16 Bandhuwa Mazdoor Act, P.S. Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that all the persons, named in the first information report, have gone along with the appellant for Nepal and all of them were now returned at their home. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that no offence under Sections 371, I.P.C., 3(1)(Ja) of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 4/16 Bandhuwa Mazdoor Act are made out from the bare perusal of the first information report. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in jail since 20.3.2019 and there is no previous criminal history.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that appellant is in jail since 20.3.2019.
I have considered the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the parties.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, the appeal has substance.
The impugned order dated 15.4.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur, is set-aside and the appeal stands allowed.
The appellant is languishing in jail since 20.3.2019. Let the appellant, Tinku @ Gyanendra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and one surety shall be family member of the appellant, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 T. Sinha