Allowed

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

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023CRLA/4424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed criminal appeals concerning bail applications rejected by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur. Relying on Article 21 and jail overcrowding without assessing merits, the bench set aside impugned bail rejection orders and granted personal bail to all appellants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection orders dated 16.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 set aside; appellants released on personal bond with two sureties each subject to bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141969

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4424 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Boby And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nafees Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Ker Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

with

¶7

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5221 of 2023

¶8

Appellant :- Uday @ Bhola Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Keshari Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Ker Singh

¶9

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶10

Both the appeals are related to the same set of facts and also arising out of same case crime number, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

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 16.03.2023 & 24.03.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by them in Case Crime No. 72 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 326-A IPC, and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

¶13

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that on 06.02.2023 at around 10.00 am the informant received a call to book his mini truck and asked to send it at Gopali to collect labour. The informant received Rs.5,000/- through the same number. Two persons riding on a motorcycle came and poured acid on the son of

¶14

the injured. One person was identified as Deepak. Some other persons were sitting in a four wheeler. All of them ran away after pouring the acid upon his son.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that appellants are not named in the FIR. The name of the appellants surfaced during the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No specific role has been assigned to anyone. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured Sanjay were found to be simple in nature. It is also submitted that co-accused Sakib and Anuj have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 and 26.05.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.4368 of 2023 and 4942 of 2023 and the role of the appellants are also on same footing. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 08.02.2023 & 07.02.2023 respectively having no criminal history. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants and argued that the statement of the injured Shubham was recorded in which he stated that a bottle containing acid was given to Sakib and Udai by Boby, Harendra, Anuj, Deepak and Ravi directing them to pour the acid upon informant. It is submitted that specific role has been assigned to appellants Udai @ Bhola and Sakib.

¶17

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 orders of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 16.03.2023 and 24.03.2023 are, hereby, set aside.

¶18

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

¶19

Let appellants Boby, Harendra and Uday @ Bhola be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The criminal appeals are allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Mohit

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boby 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

Kamlesh Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarachand @ Tarun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavi Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another