Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2023CRLA/3122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the impugned order rejecting his bail application under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the lower court's order and released the appellant on bail based on procedural inadequacies in the rejection order, fundamental rights considerations regarding jail overcrowding, and uncertainty regarding the trial's concl

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding witness interference and court attendance. The criminal appeal is al

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113877

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3122 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 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 appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2023, whereby the Addl. Session Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 755 of 2022, under Sections 452, 307, 323, 380, 511 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.

¶8

There is allegation in the first information report against three named and one unknown accused regarding causing fracture on the head of the injured.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not clear who was the author of the aforesaid injury, which was not found to be grievous by the Doctor. He has submitted that appellant has been generally implicated in this case. Appellant has three criminal history explained in the supplementary affidavit which has been brought on record. It is a case of malicious prosecutions of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He is languishing in jail since 04.01.2023. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he 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 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.

¶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 appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 07.02.2023 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 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

¶13

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.

¶14

Let appellant, Rahul, 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:

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) The appellant 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 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.

¶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 appellant, 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 :- 23.5.2023 SS

¶26

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

Rahul v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Nagma Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhuruv Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naushad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Prakash Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another