Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023CRLA/8070/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. Setting aside the lower court's refusal, the High Court granted bail to the appellant under the SC/ST Act, citing the need for speedy trial and jail overcrowding, without adjudicating the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties; trial to be concluded expeditiously.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183967

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8070 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Shakya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken record.

¶7

On earlier occasion Sri Manish Tiwari, appeared on behalf of informant had submitted that he has filed vakalatnama but no vakalatnama is filed on behalf of informant.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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 27.07.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kasganj has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under Sections 376D, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused Rajesh Kumar Shakya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.7027 of 2022. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is submitted that appellant has criminal history to his credit which are explained in para 3 of supplementary affidavit. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail

¶12

since 10.07.2023. 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 dispute the fact that co-accused has been granted bail.

¶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 27.7.2023 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, Pradeep Kumar Shakya 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 :- 22.9.2023 Mohit

¶28

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

Pradeep Kumar Shakya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Shakya 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

Shri Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Amit Gupta Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Deepa and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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