Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLA/1976/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was filed to set aside the rejection of a bail application. The High Court observed that a co-accused in identically placed circumstances was already released on bail. Relying on principles of parity, Article 21, and jail overcrowding, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside and the appellant, Rashid @ Tundi, was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Rashid @ Tundi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1976 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Rashid @ Tundi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Zia Uddin Ahmad,Azizur Rahman Khan,Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; 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 02.09.2022, whereby the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 58 of 2022, under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC, 7 of C.L.A. Act, Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, police station Kareli, district Prayagraj.

¶7

The co-accused, Saiyad Shafil Shafeeq, has been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3995 of 2022. The prayer for release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity has been made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2022.

¶8

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.

¶9

Considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and for the reasons disclosed in the order of co-accused, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

¶10

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 02.09.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶11

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 considering the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the

¶12

opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let appellant, Rashid @ Tundi, 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:

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 SS

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid @ Tundi 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

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.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and Another