Allowed

Arun v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLA/1481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal, special leave was granted to quash the lower court's rejection order. The High Court set aside the dismissal of the bail application due to a one-sided investigation and jail overcrowding, granting bail subject to standard conditions while reserving judgment on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1481 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Arun Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Daga,Sharvan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

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 24.1.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 413 of 2022, under Sections 147,149,302,307 IPC and Sections 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi.

¶7

There is allegation in the First Information Report that about nine months ago husband of the informant sold 2.5 Bigha land in favour of Vinod Kumar for sale consideration of Rs. 22 lacs.Rs. 8 lacs was paid by Vinod Kumar and remaining amount was required to be paid by Vinod Kumar but he was avoiding the same. Thereafter Vinod Kumar informed the husband of the deceased that land of Jairam, area one acre, is being sold,let us purchase it together. The deal was finalised and Rs.2.5 lac was paid to son of Jai Ram.It was agreed that land shall be sold for Rs. 30 lacs but at the time of sale deed co-accused, Bhajju started demanding Rs.40 lacs .On the same day i.e, 7.10.2022, Vinod Kumar called her husband at 6 P.M..At about 9 P.M. the informant called him and he informed that he will came after taking dinner. She again called at 9.45 P.M. when her husband informed that its raining he will come soon.On 8.10.2022 in the morning her husband was

¶8

found to be murdered on the place where he was called by co-accused, Vinod Kumar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no allegation made against the appellant in the First Information Report.His name has surfaced in the statement of injured Sahab Singh recorded on 13.12.2022 when the incident took place on 7.10.2022.Even in the statement of aforesaid Sahab Singh role of causing any injury to the injured or the deceased was not assigned to appellant.There was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. He is not related to the co-accused persons. Dispute regarding money was between Vinod Kumar and the deceased.The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 14.12.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have 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.

¶11

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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 24.1.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

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

¶13

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, Arun 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:

¶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 ofÏcer 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

¶22

appellant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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 :- 1.5.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gullu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mool Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid @ Tundi Vs State of U.P. and Another