Allowed

Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023CRLA/5050/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed criminal appeals against bail rejection orders. Finding the impugned order did not correctly consider the case and noting jail overcrowding under Article 21, the Court set aside the rejection and enlarged appellants on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to seven specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139622

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5050 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Umesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakant Tiwari,Umesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4935 of 2023

¶7

Appellant :- Gajraj Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakant Tiwari,Umesh Chandra Tiwari

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bharti Mishra

¶9

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶10

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

¶11

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

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 25.04.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by them in Case Crime No. 190 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 436 of IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present. General role has been assigned to all the named persons including

¶15

appellants. No specific role is assigned to the appellants and also no weapon is attributed to them. It is submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. It is submitted that first information report has been lodged against 12 persons making allegation that all the named persons had beaten the informant and other relatives and three persons sustained injuries. The injury report brought on record which indicate that nature of the injury sustained by the injured persons are found to be simple in nature. It is further submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties for a land dispute and for that reason false FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that a cross FIR has also been lodged from the side of appellants having Case Crime No.263 of 2023. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants are languishing in jail since 26.11.2022 and 29.11.2022 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. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that in the instant case three persons sustained injury and charge sheet has been filed but could not dispute the fact that co-accused have been granted bail having identical role with the appellants.

¶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 order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 25.04.2023 is, 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 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.

¶19

Let appellants Umesh Yadav and Gajraj Yadav 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 appeal is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Mohit

¶31

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

Umesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Yadav 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

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

Aniket Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another