Allowed

Zaid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023CRLA/8195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the judge allowed the bail application of the appellant who had been in undertrial custody for several years. The court set aside the orders rejecting bail, citing the fundamental right to speedy trial and severe jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to standard conditions including not intimidating witnesses and appearing for trial dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202658

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8195 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Zaid Ali Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sujan Singh,Shreesh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Pal

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

As per office report service on opposite party no. 2 is sufficient. Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance 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 18.07.2023 whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal at Chandausi has rejected the bail application, arising out of case crime no. 148 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 376/506 of IPC R/W Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 and under Section (2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baniya Ther Sambhal, District Sambhal.

¶10

The prosecution case as per the F.I.R is that appellant introduced himself as Anurag Thakur to the informant and on the false promise of marriage physically exploited her. The appellant had taken several lakhs rupees while cheating the informant. After sometime the informant came to know that the appellant was not Anurag Thakur but was a muslim boy having name as Zaid Ali, the informant made demand of her money from the appellant then he threatened her and attempted to convert her religion.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that once the allegation is made against appellant that he

¶12

established physical relation on the pretext of marriage would have been in the knowledge of the informant that he was muslim boy. It is also submitted that medical report does not corroborate the version of the prosecution. It is also submitted that there is no evidence that appellant compelled her for conversion of the religion and it further submitted that during trial the informant had admitted that she received some amount from the appellant but inspite of it she could not identify the identity of the appellant which is not possible. It is further submitted that five prosecution witnessed have been recorded and there is no occasion for the appellant to temper the witnesses. Appellant is languishing in jail since 07.06.2018 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. have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that postmortem report mentioned that deceased died due to suffocation but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶16

"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."

¶17

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. The impugned rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and

¶18

the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶19

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.

¶20

Let appellant, Zaid Ali 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:

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶31

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 PS

¶32

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zaid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaid Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adesh Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jatin Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Hasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajjab Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another