Allowed

Vishal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023CRLA/2510/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejection order. Finding the lower court failed to consider the appellant's case, the court granted bail due to overcrowding and procedural lapses, subject to standard conditions and an expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions including presence at key trial dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110439

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2510 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Vishal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

As per office report dated 18.05.2023 notice sent to opposite party no.2 has been refused to receive as a result of which notice by way of refusal is deemed to be served.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

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 25.01.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 301 of 2022, under Section 363 IPC and Section 3(2)5(A) SC/ST Act, Police Station Sikariganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶10

There is allegation against the appellant of enticement of minor girl belonging to schedule caste.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she has not made allegation of abduction against the appellant. She has left company of lawful guardian on her own sweet will. Therefore, she was not forcible abducted and no case is made out against the appellant. 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. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 26.11.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 25.01.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let appellant, Vishal, 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:

¶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 :- 19.5.2023 SS

¶27

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

Vishal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal 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

Khardookshan @ Bhayyan @ Tiger Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Monti Raikwar @ Manohar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhola Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Alias Golu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ram Dhakeli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others