Allowed

Babloo Urf Ballu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023CRLA/4417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail. The court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant based on Article 21 freedoms regarding speedy trial and jail overcrowding, expressly abstaining from commenting on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.06.2022 rejecting bail was set aside; appellant released on personal bond and sureties subject to specific conditions including prohibition on tampering and requirement for pre

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137704

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4417 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Babloo Urf Ballu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

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

¶8

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 17.06.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 144 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, and Section 3(2)V(Ka) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

¶9

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant left her house on 24.03.2022 at around 7.00 am. The informant was not at her home. The daughter of the informant did not return and she was not traceable in spite of search. Informant came to know that present appellant along with other accused Saurav had taken away her daughter.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has not committed offence as described in the FIR. Victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. narrated her age to be 18 years and submitted that she accompanied with the appellant at her own accord. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she reiterated the same version. It is submitted that as per the ossification test the age of the prosecutrix was determined to be 16 years.In this respect, the law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that there is no evidence that

¶11

appellant kidnapped or abducted the prosecutrix. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2022 having no criminal history. 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.

¶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 above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 17.06.2022 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; 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, Babloo Urf Ballu 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

¶20

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Mohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo Urf Ballu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo Urf Ballu 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

Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safeeq Kahan @ Chunnu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Israr Shekh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another