Allowed

Rinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2023CRLA/8978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the lower court's order rejecting bail. Holding that the trial court did not properly consider the appellant's case and citing jail overcrowding and Article 21, the Court granted bail subject to conditions forbidding witness intimidation and ensuring presence at hearings.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness protection and court attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8978 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Rinku Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Niwash Yadav,Ravi Prakash Singh Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, 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 appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 1.10.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 183 of 2022, under Sections 376, 307, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5), 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad.

¶8

There is allegation against the appellant of committing the offence of rape, threatening and beating apart from committing the offence of attempt to murder by pressing neck of the victim belonging to scheduled caste.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place in open field, but no internal and external injury has been found on the person of the victim. It is a case of false implication. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of village politics. The victim is a married woman and is having children. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 5.8.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

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 point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 1.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let appellant, Rinku , 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:

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 27.4.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku 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

Manish Paliwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote @ Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vinay Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Badshah Vs State of U.P. and Another