Allowed

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLA/1039/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. Setting aside the lower court's order, it granted bail to the appellant in a murder and kidnapping case due to his under-trial status, overcrowding, and unclear investigations, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Ankit released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1039 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Ankit Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

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 11.2.2020 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hapur, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 200 of 2019, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 34, 404, 411, IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur .

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR against three named accused, namely, Raju, Ravi and Arti, of committing the offence of kidnapping, murder and causing disappearance of dead body of the deceased with common intention and recovery of incriminating material from them.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant was not named in the FIR. The applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement of Baboo @ Mahboob, who has stated that the deceased was known to co-accused aforesaid and had dispute with him. Thereafter he found that the deceased was meeting with the sister of the appellant, which he did not liked. The appellant alongwith co-accused caused his murder after consuming liquor with him. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement. The recovery of mobile phone of the deceased was shown from co-accused, Tejpal. Before the police, statement of Tejpal has been recorded, wherein he has stated that aforesaid mobile was being used by the appellant and not by the deceased. Police in order to save Tejpal has falsely implicated the appellant. It is a case of malicious prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 25.01.2019. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 11.2.2020 is, hereby, set aside.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let appellant, Ankit, 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:

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit v. State of U.P.

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

Gullu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mool Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid @ Tundi Vs State of U.P. and Another