Allowed

Munnilal Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2023CRLA/10262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed to set aside an order rejecting bail. It quashed the rejection and granted bail to the appellants pending trial, citing procedural flaws and jail overcrowding.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail furnished by personal bond and two reliable sureties each per case on conditions of non-interference and regular attendance.

Munnilal Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10262 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Munnilal Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- M.S. Chauhan,Shivkumari Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this appeal.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

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 22.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ballia, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 275 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 308 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Sahatwar, District Ballia,

¶9

The applicants and four co-accused persons were implicated in this case on the allegation of making attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder besides offences of rioting, beating and threatening.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the injuries suffered by the injured have been found to be simple in nature. No fracture was found on the body of any of the injured. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants. They have been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellants under the provisions of SC/ST Act. They have no criminal history to their credit and are languishing in jail since 21.10.2022. In case, the appellants are released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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

¶12

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, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

It appears that the court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of the above consideration the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 22.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

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 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 appellants, Munnilal Sharma, Chandan Sharma and Krishna Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 appellants 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 appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) The appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on

¶21

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶22

(vi) The appellants 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. 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 :- 18.4.2023 Abhishek

¶28

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

Munnilal Sharma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnilal Sharma and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shafique Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Raju Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another