Allowed

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2023CRLA/2812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed by an undertrial accused seeking bail. The High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail due to delay in concluding trial, jail overcrowding, and one-sided investigation, without opining on merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions; trial concluded within six months.

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126044

¶3

Reserved On:- 29.05.2023 Delivered On:-12.06.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2812 of 2019

¶5

Appellant :- Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Abhijit Mishra,Satendra Singh,Sudhir Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Sharma,Sudhir Bharti

¶7

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶8

List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶9

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

¶10

Case diary produced by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶11

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 19.11.2018 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mainpuri, in Session Trial Case No. 33 of 2017, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 134/2017, under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bewar, District Mainpuri.

¶12

There is allegation in the FIR that on 19.02.2017 at about 3:30 pm, the informant was standing near his house with his brother, Alok Kumar @ Lalu and Nilesh, belonging to caste jatav when the appellant followed him with two persons at some distance. On coming close, the appellant started abusing the informant like he did on earlier occasions and when his brother protested, he fired on his brother who fell down and firing missed the target. Thereafter, he again fired on his brother which hit on side of his face and he died on the spot.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication and a case of single shot made from close range since blackening and charring were present around the wound. There were two others persons with the appellant, but only he has been assigned the main

¶14

¶15

role. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 21.02.2017. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant has stated that there is direct role assigned to the appellant of causing the alleged offence.

¶17

The court below has sent a status report of the trial dated 25.05.2023 which shows that Dr. Nityanand Diwedi, was required to be examined before the court below, but on account of his illness the matter has been adjourned to 31.05.2023. The report of the district Judge is very cryptic and has not given any detail as to how many witnesses have been examined till date and how many witnesses remain to be examined, but it appears that the witnesses of fact have been examined and the formal witnesses are to examined. However, the long incarceration of the appellant in jail since 21.07.2017 is clear.

¶18

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 facts of the case. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 19.11.2018 is, hereby, set aside.

¶19

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.

¶20

Let appellant, Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram, 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:

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶32

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

¶33

Order Date :- 12.06.2023

¶34

Abhishek

¶35

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram 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

Juned Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shonti Alias Shaswat Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Mugish @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhota Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navin Vs State of U.P. and Another