Allowed

Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2023CRLA/10570/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed two criminal appeals regarding bail applications rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad. The court set aside the rejection due to the trial court failing to properly consider the case material. Relying on Article 21 and jail overcrowding, the High Court ordered the release of appellants on personal and surety bonds subject to specific conditions, expressly re

What did the court decide?

Release of appellants Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu and Shiv Mani Bind on bail subject to undertaking and furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each.

Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236374

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10570 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- I.P. Singh,Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10556 of 2023

¶7

Appellant :- Shiv Mani Bind Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- I.P. Singh,Desh Ratan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶9

Since both the criminal appeals are connected and arising out of same case crime, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.

¶10

List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

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 26.08.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by them in Case Crime No. 306 of 2022, under Sections 304, 201/34 of IPC, and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that appellants are named in the FIR merely on the basis of suspicion. Initially, a missing report was lodged by the Rakesh Kumar Gautam, the brother of deceased Anil Kumar. Thereafter he

¶14

identified the dead body as of his brother. Witnesses Ramdular Bind and Raghvendra gave statement merely on the basis of hearsay. It is submitted that so far as the recovery of Truck and the articles of the deceased are concerned, no bloodstains was found on them. It is submitted that no motive has been attributed to the appellants. There is no eye witnesses of the incident. It is also submitted that except the appellants all other named accused have been exonerated during trial. It is submitted that co-accused Raju Bind and Anil Kumar Bind have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.07.2023 and 19.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3445 of 2023 and 9404 of 2023 respectively. It is submitted that there is no recovery of any kind of weapon from the appellants either on their pointing or out of their possession. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2022 and 13.11.2022 having no criminal history. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 appellants. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 26.08.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants; appellants 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.

¶18

Let appellants, Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu and Shiv Mani Bind 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:

¶19

(i) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Mohit

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mani Bind @ Pipu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Parmisa and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Noor Saba and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munni @ Pooja @ Pano Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aditya Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another