Holding that an accused has suffered incarceration for a significant time without a timely trial prospect, the Court enlarged the appellant on bail, set aside the lower court’s rejection order, and imposed standard derogation conditions.
Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; existing bail rejection order quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185208
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8169 of 2023
Appellant :- Santosh Alias Bachchu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rudra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahendra Prasad
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mahendra Prasad, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Bail Application No. 7003 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 409 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gola, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. General role has been assigned to all the named accused persons in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that co-accused Govinda, Dilip @ Bholu, Kinnu Devi have already been granted bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2021, 05.11.2020, 29.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3910 of 2019, 5315 of 2019 and 20465 of 2019 respectively. Apart from it, co-accused Anup Shukla from whom the country made pistol was recovered, has also been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4910 of 2023. Four witnesses of fact have already been examined before the trial Court.The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant
fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2018 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant, namely, Santosh @ Bachchu involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023 AKT
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail after languishing in judicial custody for a significant period considering the nature of offences and lack of tampering risk.
Whether the bail rejection order passed by the Special Judge was liable to be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebFollowed¶11
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Alias Bachchu
State of U.P
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
