Allowed

Awadhesh Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2023CRLA/10010/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. Finding that the lower court failed to properly consider facts, ignored the defence, and neglected the constitutional right against jail overcrowding, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount to satisfaction of the trial court, subject to standard bail conditions.

Awadhesh Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103089 Reserved On:- 02.05.2023 Delivered On:- 12.05.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10010 of 2022 Appellant :- Awadhesh Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Chaturvedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chitrakoot has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 374 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC, Section 3(2)V and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST (P.A) Act, Police Station- Kotwali Karvi, District- Chitrakoot.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that the informant / victim was grazing goats near the field of Vijay Patel at about 05:00 p.m on 26.07.2020 when the appellant came and started abusing her for grazing goats there. When she protested against the abuses, being hurled against her, he beated her by legs and fists. When she raised alarm number of villagers and her aunt came and thereafter the appellant after extending threats to her ran away.

¶8

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that dispute took place because the appellant had given his land to the parents of the informant for share cropping (batai) but later he decided to cultivate his land on his own and hence the informant got him implicated through his daughter. He has submitted that only one abrasion of 4cm x 3cm over right scapula was found on the person of the victim. She complained of pain in her stomach. She was referred to Gynaecological Surgeon for examination and no internal damage in her stomach was found. He has submitted that the appellant is a farmer and has no criminal history to his credit. The uterus of the victim was found to bulky inside but it has no concern with the alleged incident.

¶10

Learned A.G.A has opposed the appeal of the appellant.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 19.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of

¶13

¶14

the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let appellant, Awadhesh Patel , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses

¶18

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(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 the trial court.

¶20

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

¶21

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶24

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.05.2023 Rohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Awadhesh Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badshah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Rajat Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahipal Ahir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanu Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another