Allowed

Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023CRLA/1284/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act in a case involving culpable homicide and atrocities. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding procedural flaws in the bail rejection. The appellant was granted bail with specific conditions, maintaining that non-binding observations did not prejudge the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Umesh Yadav released on bail in Case Crime No. 1614 of 2016 with personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions including attendance and no witness intimidation.

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1284 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Umesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Srinette,K.K.Rao,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajnish Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 24.01.2020 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 1614 of 2016, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3/2 (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that the brother of informant was employed as driver in the police department. On the fateful day of 1.12.2016 some dispute took place between the appellant and the deceased, as a result of which it is alleged that the appellant caused him injury by his service revolver.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of single shot. He has submitted that no one has seen the incident. The informant stated that, he received information from police station that his brother has been shot and then he reached the hospital at Ghaziabad it is alleged that in the First Information Report two eye witnesses namely, Hukum Singh and Santosh Kumar, stated that the dispute took place regarding money between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant caused gun shot injury to the deceased in their presence. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that two eye witnesses named in the FIR have not been examined before the trial court. The informant, who stated before the police in his statement 161 Cr.P.C., that he was not present when the incident took place at Ghaziabad stated in

¶10

his examination-in-chief before the trial court that at the time of the incident, he was present and the appellant caused the gun shot injury to his brother by his service revolver in his presence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not present at the time of incident and was at Delhi with his uncle. Learned counsel for appellant has further submitted that there is vital contradiction in the statement of P.W.-1 which shows that he is not the eye witness of the incident since in the examination-in-chief, he has stated that he is an eye witness but in his cross examination, he has stated that he was not present at the time of alleged incident. It has further been submitted that the P.W.-2, who claims himself to be uncle of the deceased, has been introduced as witness who has stated that he informed the Investigating Officer after four 4-5 months of the incident. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 04.12.2016. 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 are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 24.01.2020 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; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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, Umesh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶15

reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 Abhishek

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Yadav 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

Indresh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivshankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Yadav Alias Lallan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babbu @ Surendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkripal Vs State of Up and Another