Allowed

Manish Paliwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023CRLA/7458/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court set aside the lower court's order rejecting bail for the appellant, Mandal Paliwal, accused of murder and an offence under the SC/ST Act. Considering overcrowding in jails and delays in trial, the court released him on bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond, two sureties, and complying with specific conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance in court, and no re-offending.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7458 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Manish Paliwal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Avanish Pratap Singh,Saurabh Chaturvedi,Udai Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned A.G.A for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

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 10.07.2019 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hathras has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 84 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras.

¶7

Despite service of notice on opposite party no. 2, no one has put an appearance on his behalf.

¶8

There is allegation against the appellant of committing the offence of murder of a woman belonging to schedule caste.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim was having some sort of illicit relationship / love affair with the appellant. She was earlier married to one person and has stated living in the house of the informant on rent with her two children. Her dead body was found in the house after two days of her death lying in the room. Cause of death was found to be consumption of poison.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that it has come in the statement of the informant that the appellant and the deceased were living like husband and wife and lots of quarrel used to take place between them. Prior to the death of the deceased also quarrel took place between them and thereafter she may have consumed poison. There was no external mark of injury found on the person of the deceased. The appellant was falsely implicated in this case. He has not caused the murder of the deceased. He has no

¶11

criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 25.09.2018. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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 facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 10.07.2019 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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.

¶15

Let appellant, Manish Paliwal, 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:

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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

¶19

Cr.P.C.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law within period of one year after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week.

¶28

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Rohit

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Paliwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Paliwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jalees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote @ Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhushan Rajbhar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another