Allowed

Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2023CRLA/10246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant, an under-trial accused, citing prolonged incarceration, jail overcrowding, and fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail subject to personal bond with two sureties and conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference.

Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203188

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10246 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 06.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bijnor in Bail Application No.3395 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2021, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Sections 3(1)D, 3(1)Dh of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, the appellant had taken an amount of Rs.7,60,000/- from the informant on the pretext of providing job in railway department.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded before the trial court and in the cross-examination, he stated that the appellant had not taken any money from him and appellant had also not addressed any caste related word. It is further submitted that all the transactions of money were made by Navin Kumar not by the present appellant. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the informant has received his money and now no dispute lies between the appellant and the informant.

¶12

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶13

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶14

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. The impugned rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of 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.

¶16

Let appellant, Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar 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:

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The criminal appeal is allowed .

¶28

Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Shivangi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulashan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Omveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jatin Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Hasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapoor Chand Vs State of U.P.