Manoj Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:221467

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10650 of 2023

Appellant :- Manoj Pal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard 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 7.10.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No.510 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506, 384 of IPC, and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly.

¶8

There is allegation that on 11.5.2023 during the day time appellant-Manoj Pal on gun point committed rape with informant and continuously committed rape with her. The informant is a tenant of house of Madhuri Pal, co-accused. Son of Madhuri Pal, namely, Priyanshu, had committed indecent activities with the daughter of the informant. Appellant is addressing and threatening the informant with caste related abuses and also to circulate her indecent videos.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submitted that since the appellant is a Press Reporter, therefore, false allegation has been made against him. The informant is the tenant of Madhuri Pal, who is Mausi of the appellant. The informant is a lady of bad character and does not enjoy a good reputation, therefore, appellant advised her Mausi to get her room vacated from the informant and some hot talk took place on this issue because of this dispute the appellant is implicated in this case. No indecent video has been recovered so far from the mobile of the appellant. The appellant never addressed or threatened the informant with any indecent remarks or caste related words. Applicant is

¶10

languishing in jail since 12.08.2023, having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 in this case are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary.

¶12

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 8.2.2023 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; 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, Manoj Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable heavy 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 :- 20.11.2023 m.a.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AYYUB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Jyoti Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khaliq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid @ Kare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vansh Kumar(Minor) Vs State of U.P through Its Prin. Sec. (Home) and Another