In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting anticipatory bail and allowed bail, citing fundamental rights and jail overcrowding.
The appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial.
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:233424
Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10764 of 2023 Appellant :- Manish Rai @ Pampam Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1.Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel on behalf of the informant is taken on record.
informant on which basis the armed licence of the informant was cancelled and for this reason the appellant is being implicated in this present case. The victim Soni did not disclose the name of the appellant during her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C while during her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she made improvement because she was tutored by the informant and his wife. The call detail report also discloses that the appellant was not at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The process of 82 Cr.P.C was issued by the concerned court on the day when the anticipatory bail of the appellant was rejected. The injuries sustained by the wife of the informant and Soni were found to be simple in nature. It is also submitted that co-accused Ashok Rai and Piyush Rai have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7567 of 2023. It has been stated that appellant is having apprehension of imminent arrest and that appellant has no criminal history to his credit and that in case, he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the Investigation.
appellant committed the offence as alleged in the F.I.R.
(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 applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(iv) The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 7.12.2023/PS
Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the grant of anticipatory bail should be set aside.
Whether the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering overcrowding in jails under Article 21.
Manish Rai @ Pampam Rai
State Of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
