Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/1616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the rejection of bail by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, granting bail to the appellant due to the court below not properly considering his case, concerns over trial delay, and jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Vinay Yadav released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to standard conditions including attendance and conduct.

Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118593

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1616 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Vinay Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sharad Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 no has turned up to oppose this appeal.

¶8

This is second criminal appeal of the appellant. First Criminal Appeal No.497 of 2021 was rejected by coordinate bench of this court on 16.05.2022.

¶9

Heard Sri Pradeep Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sharad Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

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 18.01.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 155 of 2021, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Nidholi Kalan, District Etah

¶11

There is allegation in the first information that informant belongs to caste of Jatav. On the night 14/15-07-2021 at about 11.00 p.m., her husband Raj Bahadur was sleeping on the gate of his house, Vishnu @ Sudhir Yadav and the appellant, Vinay Yadav, along with two unknown accused came on motor-cycles and threatened her husband against make of their complaint before the police. On 12.07.2021 they had spared life of his wife and thereafter co-accused, Vishnu @ Sudhir Yadav, took out his licenced revolver and fired below chest of her husband. Appellant also fired at her husband who raised alarm. The informant came out and saw accused persons starting

¶12

motor-cycles and when she raised alarm they threatened her that they will not permit them to live in the village. After hearing sound of firing and cry for help number of villagers gathered and on their challenge the accused persons fled away. Number 112 was dialed and also 108 was dialed for ambulance. Thereafter the injured was taken to the District Hospital from where he was referred to S. N. Medical College, Agra.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while dismissing the first criminal appeal of the appellant, this court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial as per provision of Section 309 Cr.P.C., and conclude the same at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. He has submitted that before the trial court PW-1 and PW-II have been examined. He has brought on record statement of PW-1 wherein the informant has stated in her cross-examination that she does not remember the date of incident nor she saw the motorcycles of the appellant and the co-accused, Vishnu @ Sudhir Yadav. No one abused her by caste related words. She has not seen who caused fire arm injury to her husband. Co-accused, Vishnu @ Sudhir Yadav was waiving his licensed pistol, but whether he fired from the same or not, she could not see. PW-II, injured, has also been examined, who has denied any specific role of any of the accused person regarding firing made on him. He has clearly stated that being dark night he could not see anyone firing on him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that informant and the injured both have not supported the allegations made in the first information report in their statements before the trial court. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecutions of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Appellant is languishing in jail since 09.09.2021.

¶14

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.

¶15

It appears from the arguments advanced by the

¶16

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 the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 18.01.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let appellant, Vinay Yadav, 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:

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity

¶25

or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 SS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinku Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others