In an appeal against rejection of bail in an SC/ST Atrocities case, the High Court held the appellant had established a prima facie case for release, finding the lower court erred in rejecting the prayer.
The bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.
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:218804
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10466 of 2023
Appellant :- Umesh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Learned A.G.A. submits that notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2 has been duly served but no one appears on his behalf.
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 appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hapur in Bail Application No.1776 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 2023, under Sections 452, 316, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that as per the allegation of F.I.R., appellant alongwith other co-accused persons forcefully entered into the house of the informant and badly beaten up him and his wife. It is further submitted that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has assigned general role to all the accused persons including the appellant and no specific allegation has been made against the appellant. It is further submitted that statements of independent witnesses namely Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Malti Devi were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they made general allegations against all the accused including the appellant. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. 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 26.06.2023 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.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R., appellant kicked in the abdomen of victim as a result of which the fetus was damaged.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that victim Rekha herself during her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not assign any specific role to the appellant. Apart from it, the other eye witnesses did not attribute any specific role to the appellant.
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 the appellant, namely, Umesh 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 :- 17.11.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Whether the impugned order rejecting bail suffers from infirmity and illegality.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Umesh
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
