Allowed

Umer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2023CRLA/11161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the bail rejection order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act. The court held that the trial court did not properly consider the case and ordered the appellant's release on bail under Article 21, imposing standard conditions to prevent interference with witnesses and ensuring trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the appellant, Umer, on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness protection and trial attendance.

Umer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225992

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11161 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Umer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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 20.07.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 860 of 2021, under Sections 323, 328, 366, 376D, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, Distict Bijnor.

¶10

There is an allegation against the appellant that he obtained the number of informant from her sister and started calling to the informant. On 19.12.2021 at around 12.00 the appellant called the informant saying that it was the birthday of his sister and had taken her to Nageena and administered her some substance in the cold drink as a result of which she became unconscious and was raped by the appellant and other persons.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that the statement of prosecutrix was recorded but she did not corroborate the version of the FIR and was declared hostile. Similarly PW-2 Pitambar who is the father of the informant, also did not made any allegation against the appellant. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2023 having no

¶12

criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 20.07.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶15

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.

¶16

Let appellant, Umer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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:

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 30.11.2023 Mohit

¶28

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

Umer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umer 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

Smt. Shaista Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Manish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sandhya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Daya Shankar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shweta Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagatnarayan Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others