Allowed

Ajay Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2023CRLA/8983/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application. The court held that the lower court failed to consider facts properly and granted bail due to procedural improprieties, lacking an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearance in court.

Ajay Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123902

¶3

Reserved On:- 18.05.2023 Delivered On:- 02.06.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8983 of 2022 Appellant :- Ajay Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶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 28.10.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 331 of 2022, under Sections- 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police StationGambhirpur, District- Azamgarh.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that on 10.09.2022 at about 08:00 p.m, Rajesh Gaur entered into the house of the informant and abused and beaten him and gave him threat of life. Then on 15.09.2022 the appellant called husband of informant and took work from him for the whole day. He came back in the evening and went back stating that the appellant has called him thereafter he never came back. She called on his phone but it was not reachable. She went to the house of the appellant on 16.09.2022

¶9

¶10

but he was not found. He was found in the shop of country made liquor. On being asked, he denied any knowledge of husband of informant. On 17.09.2022 she reached the police station and gave application against the appellant and co-accused persons, Rajesh, Fakru, Heera and Rakesh. She expressed apprehension that all the accused persons have caused murder of her husband and have got his dead body disappear. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a pond and cause of death was found to be drowning.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eyewitness of the incident nor any credible evidence was collected by the investigating officer against the appellant. He had no motive to commit the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion only. The applicant is in jail since 21.09.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

Counsel for the informant has filed a counter affidavit stating that the appellant and Rajesh Gaur had enmity with the husband of the informant. Prior to the incident in dispute, co-accused, Rajesh Gaur, had abused, beaten and threatened him. He has submitted that in the confessional statement of accused it has come that on 15.09.2022 he called the deceased on the pond for taking out “jalkumbhi”, thereafter they caught fishes from pond. The deceased went to his house at about 5 p.m and returned at 5:30 p.m with country made liquor, glass, water bottle and snacks. The appellant, co-accused, Fakru and the deceased consumed liquor together and they started fishing again. The deceased started abusing the co-accused, Fakru and appellant and hence they drowned him in the pond. Similar confession was made by co-accused, Fakru, also.

¶13

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the appeal of the appellant.

¶14

¶15

After hearing the rival submissions, the appellant has not been assigned any role by the informant in the FIR. He has been implicated in this case only on the basis of his confessional statement and confession of co-accused, Fakru, recorded before the police. On account of specific role of co-accused, Fakruddin @ Fakru, his Criminal Appeal No. 9081 of 2022, has been rejected by the order of date. Considering the fact that case of the appellant is different from co-accused, his bail is granted.

¶16

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 they could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

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 28.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

Let appellant, Ajay Prajapati , 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. (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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

¶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 :- 02.06.2023 Rohit

¶32

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

Ajay Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Prajapati 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

Farhaz Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maiku Lal @ Bhagwandas and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Mohan Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Halku Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fakruddin @ Fakaru Vs State of U.P. and Another