Allowed

Mithilesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023CRLA/5185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail applications in a case involving atrocities under SC/ST Act and IPC sections. Relying on fundamental rights under Article 21 and jail overcrowding, the Court allowed bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants Mithilesh Pandey and Satish Pandey released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions including no tampering, no intimidation of witnesses, and presence for tr

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:129898

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5185 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mithilesh Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amarendra Nath Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

with

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5522 of 2023

¶7

Appellant :- Satish Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amarendra Nath Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yogesh Dutta Mishra

¶8

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶9

Both the connected matters are arising out of same case crime, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.

¶10

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

¶11

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 04.04.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by them in Case Crime No. 176 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, and Section 3(2)(v-a) 3 (1)n & 3(1)/k of SC/ST Act, Police Station Babhani, District Sonbhadra.

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Initially, the first information report was lodged under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 406 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3 (1)(d) and 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted that no injury is sustained by informant or any other person. It is also submitted that during

¶13

investigation on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer the main allegation of taking money on the pretext of providing job was not found to be true and sections 147, 323, 406 of IPC were deleted and charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted that no any word with regard to caste of the informant was ever uttered by the appellants. It is submitted that criminal history of the appellants are duly explained in para 23 of the bail application. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants are languishing in jail since 04.04.2023 and in case, they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

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 appellants but could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

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 appellants. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 04.04.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶16

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.

¶17

Let appellants Mithilesh Pandey and Satish Pandey , 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:

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The criminal appeals are allowed.

¶28

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Mohit

¶29

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

Mithilesh Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh 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

Master X. Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Achal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandrabhawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Antima Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others