Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC3 May 2023CRLA/7525/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Criminal Judge rejected bail under SC/ST Act for murder and other charges due to serious allegations. Division Bench held lower court erred by ignoring defence material and not concluding trial. Allowed appeal, set aside bail rejection, and granted bail with conditions including expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; impugned order of rejection set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7525 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Anil Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Akshayavar Nath Pandey, ,Adesh Kumar,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Birendra Singh Khokher,Jitendra Singh,Sharad Malviya,Sumit Goyal,Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avnish Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

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

¶8

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 15.11.2019 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 614 of 2019, under Sections 302, 404 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut.

¶9

FIR was lodged against unknown accused regarding commission of offence of murder of the wife of informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant was not named in the FIR. Subsequently in the statement of Arti, the nice of the deceased, she stated that she had illicit relationship with the appellant and she was seen with the appellant by the deceased in the compromising position Hence, the appellant has caused her murder. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today bringing on record the statement of aforesaid witness, Arti, who has denied before the trial court that she had any relationship with the appellant. She had also denied that she never gave any such statement before the police that she was seen in compromising position with the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.10.2019. 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. 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.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

¶13

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 15.11.2019 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, Anil Kumar, 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 Cr.P.C.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.

¶28

The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned forthwith.

¶29

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Sanjay Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Magan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and Another