Allowed

Munna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023/872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order of the Special Judge regarding a crime under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections involving an SC accused, and ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with specific conditions of appearance a

Munna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 872 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Munna Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prasadi,Rajendra Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijay Srivastav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

¶6

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Sitapur in Bail Application No.318/2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.154/2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Maholi District Sitapur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 filed a false complaint against the present appellant and another two co-accused persons. He has further submitted that by means of order dated 26.02.2021, which was passed mechanically, the present appellant alongwith two other co-accused persons came to be summoned to stand trial for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da), (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act. His further submission is that the present appellant himself belongs to schedule caste community, therefore, the provision under Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. ought

¶8

to not have been invoked against him, however, the accused / appellant came to be summoned for offence under Section 3(1) (Da), (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, which also shows that the summoning order was on instance of non application of judicial mind.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the present appellant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2023.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the co-accused, namely, Harivansh Trivedi @ Pagle has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2023 (Harivansh Trivedi @ Pagle vs. State of U.P.).

¶11

6. His further submission is that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶12

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Sitapur deserves to be set aside and consequently, the accused/ appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶13

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the accused/ appellant has been summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, however, they have not

¶14

been able to dispute the fact that the present appellant himself belongs to schedule castes community. Therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the coaccused, namely, namely, Harivansh Trivedi @ Pagle has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2023 (Harivansh Trivedi @ Pagle vs. State of U.P.). The accused / appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive and he alongwith two other co-accused persons, namely, Harivansh Trivedi @ Pagle and Sushil Kumar came to be summoned by means of summoning order dated 26.02.2021. The accused/ appellant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2023.

¶16

10. Considering the aforesaid overall facts and circumstance of the case and without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶17

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.), Sitapur in Bail Application No.318/2023 arising out of Complaint Case No.154/2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Maholi District Sitapur is set aside.

¶18

12. Let the appellant, Munna be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

¶21

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

¶22

(b) 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, and

¶23

(c) 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.

¶24

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶26

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶29

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Saurabh

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sonu Alias Israk Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Ji Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Shalu Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ruby Singh Vs Veer Pratap Singh and Another