Allowed

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023CRLA/7933/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the appellant's bail petition. The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly consider the merits while emphasizing the right to speedy trial and jail overcrowding, thereby granting bail without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184955

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7933 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rakesh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Fateh

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for the informant 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 impugned order dated 28.06.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 21 of 2023, under Sections 21 of 2023 of IPC, and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly.

¶8

The case of the prosecution as per the FIR is that the husband of the informant Prabhat disappeared suddenly on 11.02.2023 at around 8.00 pm. On 12.02.2023 the informant got the information that the dead body of the deceased of her husband was found in the forest of Rafiyabad, Police Station Bareilly. She had suspicion upon the appellant and other accused that they have committed the murder of her husband on the pretext of illicit relation with the wife of Sunil.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the informant did not lodge any missing report about her husband. The postmortem report does not indicate any injury to be caused by sharp edge weapon while it has shown to be recovered on the pointing of the appellant. It is also submitted that so far as the statements of witnesses Suman, Poonam and Bhoopa Devi are concerned, they are made witnesses of inquest in the charge sheet while Poonam has stated that appellant who was sitting with the deceased left the place, therefore, appellant did not remain with the deceased before his death. It is also submitted that

¶10

no motive has been assigned to the appellant and there is no allegation of any money transaction between the appellant and the deceased. So far as the criminal history of the appellant is concerned the appellant is implicated in two cases after lodging of the present FIR. It is also submitted that on the same set of evidence three persons have been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2023. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that on the pointing of the appellant a sword has been recovered but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect that no injury of sharp edge weapon is observed on the person of the deceased at the time of postmortem.

¶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 28.06.2023 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, Rakesh 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 :- 25.9.2023 Mohit

¶26

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

Rakesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shejal Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Shankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjani Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhole Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahid Vs State of U.P. and Another