Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023CRLA/8845/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the Special Judge's rejection of the appellant's bail application. The High Court set aside the lower order due to a failure to consider parity with a co-accused and arbitrary rejection. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions and an undertaking not to seek adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding witness intimidation and trial attendance.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 24.04.2023 Delivered On:- 02.05.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8845 of 2022 Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

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 20.10.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 277 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police StationSouth, District- Firozabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the co-accused, Sardar Alias Nand Kishore, has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order of date in Criminal Appeal No. 5379 of 2022. The case of the appellant stands on identical footing, hence the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in criminal appeal of co-accused. The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.06.2022.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶9

¶10

It appears that the court below has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 20.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let appellant, Rahul , 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:

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 02.05.2023

¶24

Rohit

¶25

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

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Magan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another