The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application. Citing Article 21 and jail overcrowding, the court overturned the trial court's order and released the appellant on bail.
Impugned order dated 07.10.2023 rejecting bail is set aside; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and 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:213161
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10469 of 2023
Appellant :- Sonu Pandey @ Devbrat Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Tiwari,Alka Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant are taken on record.
List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
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 07.10.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ballia has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 301 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 427 of IPC, and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maniar, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused Sudama Upadhyay, Manoj Upadhyay and Bikku @ Ashish have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.7131 of 2023. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that rest of the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
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. However, he does not dispute the fact that the similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by this Court.
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. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 07.10.2023 is, hereby, set aside.
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.
Let appellant, Sonu Pandey @ Devbrat Pandey be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on him 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:
(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.
(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(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.
(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.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
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.
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.
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.
The criminal appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Mohit
Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail can be set aside to grant bail in a case under the SC/ST Act.
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with similarly placed co-accused already released.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sonu Pandey @ Devbrat Pandey
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
