Allowed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2023CRLA/9062/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail for the appellant in a SC/ST Act case. Citing inadequate consideration by the lower court, one-sided police investigation, and significant jail overcrowding affecting the accused's fundamental rights, the Court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and ensuring presence in court.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117107

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9062 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Learned AGA has informed that notice on opposite party no.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this appeal.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

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 01.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 397 of 2022, under Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia.

¶9

Appellant was earlier granted bail under Section 302 I.P.C and 4/25 Arms Act vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45576 of 2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that subsequently appellant has been implicated for committing offence under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and therefore, he applied for bail under the aforesaid section before the court below, which has been rejected hence he is before this court. He further submits that there is no allegation justifying implication of appellant under Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act in the first information report nor the statement of the witnesses. Appellant is in jail since 13.08.2022 and has criminal history of one case.

¶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 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.

¶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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 01.11.2022 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

¶14

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.

¶15

Let appellant, Pawan Kumar, 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:

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(vi) The appellant 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 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.

¶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 :- 25.5.2023 SS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Rajiv Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Radha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P. and Another