Criminal Appeal against rejection of bail under RPC and SC/ST Act. Court allowed appeal, setting aside lower court order, granting bail with conditions including personal appearance and cooperation.
Appellant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and non-absence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1682 of 2018
Appellant :- Dinesh Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Amar Bahadur Maurya,Hari Mohan Srivastava,Karuna Nand Tiwari,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This appeal has been filed against judgement and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 4, Maharajganj, in Case Crime No. 695 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., and 3(1)(GH) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Sadar, District- Maharajganj, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that four of the coaccused had already been enlarged on bail and the applicant's bail was rejected for the reason that he had not complied with the terms of the interim bail inasmuch as he failed to appear on the one date fixed. It has been explained that the applicant could not appear on the single date on account of the fact that he was under treatment at Lucknow. The appellant who is languishing in jail since 20.03.2018 may be released on bail.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation against appellant and evidence in support of it and unlikelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, I find that a case for bail has been made out.
In the result, appeal is allowed . The judgement and order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 4, Maharajganj is set aside.
Let appellant-applicant-Dinesh Jaiswal, be released on bail in aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant-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 applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant-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 applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 5.6.2018 Prakhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant who was previously on interim bail but failed to appear on one fixed date due to medical treatment.
Whether a case for bail has been made out in light of the nature of accusation and unlikelihood of trial conclusion in near future.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh Jaiswal
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
