Allowed

S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023CRLA/6045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. Acknowledging jail overcrowding and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 without adjudicating guilt, the Court ordered the appellant's release on personal and two sureties bond with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to standard conditions; bail application order rejected by trial court set aside; trial expeditious conduct required.

S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187668

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6045 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey,Anil Kumar Bind,Kaushlendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

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 order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal, at Chandausi in First Bail Application No.111 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.707 of 2023) (CNR No. UPSL01001290/2023) (S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), arising out of Case Crime No.14 of 2022 under Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station G.R.P. Chandausi, District Shambhal.

¶8

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2022 the sister of the informant namely X (Victim) was working in a company at Bareilly. On 29.06.2022 she has been strangulated in Aligarh Express Special Train.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence available against the appellant. Appellant was not seen with the deceased last time before her death. No motive has been assigned to the appellant. No incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing of the appellant. It is further submitted that the statement of the sister of deceased Suman recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is only alleged that appellant was having close relations with the deceased. She has expressed mere suspicion over the appellant. It is further submitted that so far as the statement of the Gunjan, the friend of the deceased is concerned, it also does not indicate the involvement of the appellant in the incident. It is further submitted that two other co-

¶10

accused persons, who were seen last time in the company of the deceased, are exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that co-accused Isteyak has been granted bail. So far as the allegation under Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act are concerned. Appellant has not committed any offence. Appellant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2022 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 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 trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 20.03.2023 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, S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram 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 commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Imtiyaz

¶26

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram 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

Santosh Alias Bachchu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Raj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bali @ Bali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.