The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act. The court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail due to hostile prosecution evidence and a co-accused already being on bail.
Release of appellant Pawan on bail with personal bond and two sureties, and setting aside the impugned order of bail rejection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130390
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5573 of 2022
Appellant :- Pawan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 1 of 2022
Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This is second application for bail as the first application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Appeal No. 1777 of 2021 has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2021.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad in Bail Application No. 1716 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2021, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 324, 325, 326/34 IPC, Section 3(2)(V), (Va), 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jhajlait,, District Lalitpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that subsequent to the first rejection of the bail application, during the course of trial the statement of P.W.2-Akhilesh Kumar (injured) has been recorded, who did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. It is further submitted that co-accused Amit has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4909 of 2023. The criminal history of the appellant has been duly explained in para-12 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is setaside.
Let appellant, Pawan , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.
(v) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Prajapati
Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail application of the appellant, rejected by the coordinate bench, should be allowed.
Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for bail given the hostile evidence and co-accused bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan
State of U.P.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
