Allowed

Swadesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2023CRLA/300/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the rejection of bail by the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act. Finding that the lower court ignored the accused side and failed to consider the appellants' submissions regarding false implication and one-sided investigation, the Court ordered the release of the appellants on bail subject to statutory conditions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was allowed, and the bail application was allowed. Appellants Swadesh and Shani were released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99994

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 300 of 2023 Appellant :- Swadesh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Prabal Kumar Dixit,Ram Ashrey Kashyap Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned AGA has informed that notice on opposite party no.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this appeal.

¶6

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

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya, has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by him in Case Crime No. 357 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Achhalda, District Auraiya.

¶8

There are allegation against the appellants that they have caused the offences of beating and threatening of persons, belonging to scheduled caste.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is a case of false implication of the appellants. No injury was caused to anyone. Only implication was made under Sections 354 Ka and 342 IPC, which was also not to be proved by any independent witness. FIR is delayed by three days. The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal history to their credits and are languishing in jail since 02.12.2022. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

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 appellants 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 appellants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 appellants. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 02.12.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶13

the appellants; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellants 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 appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let appellants, Swadesh and Shani, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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:

¶15

(i) The appellants 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) The appellants 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.

¶18

(iv) The appellants 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 appellants are 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.

¶22

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 appellants, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.5.2023/Ruchi Agrahari

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Swadesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swadesh and Another 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

Vinay Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawase Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dabloo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another