The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail in a murder case under the SC/ST Act. The Court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail and the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Impugned bail rejection order set aside; Apparallant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220397
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10406 of 2023
Appellant :- Raju Batham Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Compliance affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 02.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Bail Application No. 1915- of 2023(Raju Batham Vs. State of U.P), arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maudarwaza, District Farrukhabad.
As per prosecution case, there is allegation against three named and three unknown accused regarding commission of offence of murder of person belong to scheduled caste.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant is not named in the F.I.R. Name of the appellant is surfaced in the confessional restatement of co-accused Raja @ Rajat Mishra. The only one gun shot injury has been found on the person of the deceased. It is not clear who was the author of the same while six persons have been implicated. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. 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 having criminal history of one case in which he has already been enlarged on bail. The appellant is languishing in
jail since 15.08.2023 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. It is further submitted that named co-accused Raja @ Rajat Mishra, Vishal @ Laddu, Akash Thakur, and unnamed coaccused Ajeet @ Golu, Vicky Gihar and Amit Gihar @ Bahubali having identical case have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.05.2023, 22.05.2023, 25.07.2023, 05.04.2023,10.10.2023 and 27.10.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1827 of 2023 and 3076 of 2023, 6819 of 2023, 136 of 2023, 38830 of 2023 and 45018 of 2023, hence, the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let appellant, Raju Batham , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 21.11.2023 PS
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether the bail rejection order suffered from infirmity and illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju Batham
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
