Allowed

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023CRLA/4831/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an appeal against the rejection of an application for bail in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court set aside the lower court's order citing the need to prevent jail overcrowding and protect fundamental rights, without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties in equal amount within the limit prescribed by the trial court.

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:135127

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4831 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yogesh Dutta Mishra,Manjulesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajiv Kumar Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶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 12.04.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 116 of 2021, under Sections 302 IPC, Section 3(2) V SC/ST Act, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that although the appellant was named in the FIR but during course of the investigation he was exonerated and no charge sheet was filed against him. Vide order dated 17.11.2022. the appellant was summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the appellant was never seen with the deceased. It is further submitted that main accused Shyamu Parihar against whom charge sheet has been filed, has already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 3791 of 2021. It is submitted that co-accused Rajeev Udainiya and Brajendra Singh Sengar who were also summoned to face trial, have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.5395 of 2023. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2023 having no criminal history. 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

¶11

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.

¶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 12.04.2023 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 appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let appellant, Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar 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

¶21

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 :- 10.7.2023 Mohit

¶27

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

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar 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

Ashish Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonam Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others