Allowed

Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2023CRLA/1942/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the lower court's order rejecting bail. The High Court found the trial court failed to properly consider the appellant's case, citing delays and jail overcrowding under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The order of rejection of bail was set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including attending all trials and not seeking adjournments

Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114364

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1942 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Pratap Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

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

¶9

Heard 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 06.12.2022, whereby the Additional District and Session Judge / Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Amroha has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 40 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 436, 324 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha

¶11

The appellant was initially enlarged on bail by the court below on 31.05.2014.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he attended the trial court up to the year 2019. Thereafter he could not attend the trial because he is truck driver and he could not get leave from the employer to attend the dates before the trial court. His trial was separated from three co-accused, who have already been acquitted by the trial court by the order dated 3rd February, 2023 brought on record. He is languishing in jail since 22.11.2022. 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. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 06.12.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶16

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.

¶17

Let appellant, Pratap, 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:

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶26

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

¶27

said in this order.

¶28

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within 10 days.

¶30

Order Date :- 24.5.2023 SS

¶31

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

Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap 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

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and Another

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Rajiv Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Radha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others