Allowed

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023CRLA/4157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal under the SC/ST Act, the High Court set aside the rejection of bail by the Sessions Court. Citing Article 21 and jail overcrowding, the court released the appellant on personal bond with sureties while explicitly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions.

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140752

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4157 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brij Kumar Saroj,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2023, whereby the learned Exclusive Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Basti rejected the Bail Application No. 623 of 2023 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 16 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti.

¶8

There is allegation in the First Information Report that on 13.01.2023 the brother of deceased Rajesh Kumar Saroj lodged an F.I.R. against Sunita and some other persons with the allegation that his brother Rakesh Kumar Saroj has left his house on 09.01.2023 at 9:30 a.m. by saying that he was going to District Basti. One Sunita to whom appellant was in relation since last five years and she always used to call him for performing the marriage and on the same day at 8:39 p.m. deceased was called to his brother-informant through mobile thereafter his phone was switched off. In spite of repeated efforts, the deceased could not find out. On 12.01.2023 through what'sapp a picture of dead body was sent on the mobile of informant from Klawari police station. Informant made suspicion that said person as his brother.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the name of the appellant was figured up only in the confessional statement of accused Sunita and there is no evidence available on record. The other witnesses only stated that appellant was having relation with accused Sunita, but this evidence has not corroborated that

¶10

appellant is also involved in the offence. No incrementing material whatsoever has been recovered either on the pointing out or the possession of the appellant. No motive has been assigned to commit the murder of the deceased and also there is no eye witness of the alleged incident, but the police has falsely dragged the appellant on the basis of confessional statement of accused Sunita, who has falsely disclosed the name of the appellant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 allegation involved is very serious in nature but he could not point out any materiel to the contrary.

¶12

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 above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 31.03.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; 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 appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let appellant, Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey 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

¶18

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 :- 14.7.2023 Vikram

¶27

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

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey 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

Dhruvchandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bantu Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaswant Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aniket Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another