Allowed

Banti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023CRLA/8056/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Special Judge's order rejecting bail for the appellant, citing the trial court's failure to properly consider his case and the constitutional imperative of preventing jail overcrowding for under-trials.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding witness intimidation, court attendance, and

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:209909

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8056 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Banti Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Personal affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶8

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

¶9

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 01.07.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 42 of 2023, under Sections 366, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(2)5a of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakar Nagar, District Etawah.

¶10

There is an allegation against the appellant that appellant had taken away the wife of the informant along with her daughter on 21.07.2022. The appellant returned to village 16.05.2023 at around 6.00 pm. On asking by the informant he stated that the wife of the informant was with him. The appellant addressed with caste related words to the informant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. During her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim-wife of the informant stated that she was physically harassed by the informant so she left her house at her own accord along with her children. The age of the wife of the informant is 32 years. It is submitted that there is nothing on record which can indicate that appellant had taken away the wife of the informant. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act.

¶12

Appellant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 1.7.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶15

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.

¶16

Let appellant, Banti 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:

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶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 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

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 Mohit

¶28

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

Banti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banti 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

Virendra Chaurasia and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamnarayan Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narsingh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pahar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Preetam @ Guru Pratap @ Guru Pratapesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another