Satyanarayan Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8834 of 2022

Appellant :- Satyanarayan Tiwari And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants; learned A.G.A for opposite party no.1; Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 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 appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 332 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 325, 308 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)dha of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Paschim Sarira, DistrictKaushambi.

¶8

There is allegation against the appellants and six co-accused persons that while the informant was passing from their door with the generator, the appellants exhorted the co-accused and they beated the informant and other persons accompanying him. They caused injuries by lathi danda and kulhadi with common object.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the parties lodged first information report against each other and injuries were caused on both the sides. There is no allegation regarding use of any caste related abuses by the appellants against the injured. The appellants have only been assigned the role of exhortation and there is no specific role of causing injury to any of the injured against the appellants. The appellant no. 1 has criminal history of eight cases explained in the affidavit out of which he has been acquitted in one case. In two cases, final report has been submitted. In one case, he has not been charge sheeted and one case under Electricity Act compromise has taken place and in one case under Section 110G has become infructuous and in the remaining cases he is on bail. Appellant no. 2 has no criminal

¶10

history to his credit. They are languishing in jail since 11.10.2022 It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 appellants and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 02.11.2022 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; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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 appellants, Satyanarayan Tiwari and Anil Sen, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of

¶18

charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(iv) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 appellants are 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.4.2023 Rohit

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyanarayan Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithlesh Kumar Mishra @ Mithlesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another