Allowed

Sushil @ Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023CRLA/9262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Court's rejection of the appellants' bail application. Citing Article 21 and jail overcrowding, the single-judge bench granted bail to the appellants without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, issuing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellants were released on personal bond and two local sureties each, subject to specific conditions.

Sushil @ Bablu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195032

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9262 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sushil @ Bablu And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for the informant 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 23.08.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by them in Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308 of IPC, and Section 3(2)Ka, 3(1)(dh) 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Fatehpur.

¶8

The case of the prosecution as per the FIR is that on 10.06.2022 at around 9.00 pm when the son of the informant namely Dharmendra was returning to his home, the appellant along with other co-accused stopped him and addressed with caste related words and had beaten him with wooden stick. The informant received information on phone and he also reached at the place of occurrence and he was also beaten by the appellants and was addressed by caste related words.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. No motive has been attributed to the appellants to cause the incident. General role has been assigned to all the named persons. There is no recovery of any wooden stick on the pointing of the appellants. Since general role has been assigned to all the accused, therefore, it cannot be said that who is the author of the injury sustained by injured Dharmendra and Kallu. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants are languishing in jail since 23.08.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they will not misuse the

¶10

liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants and argued that appellants caused the incident after knowing the caste of the informant and his son but could not dispute the fact that general role is assigned to the appellants.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellants. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 23.08.2023 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 appellants; appellants 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 appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let appellants, Sushil @ Bablu, Chhaggan, Ravi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two local 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 him 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 charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Mohit

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil @ Bablu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil @ Bablu and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alkesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Chaturvedi @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amresh Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishori @ Ram Kishor Vs State of U.P.