Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023CRLA/9280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application. The court observed that the lower court failed to properly consider the case and noted jail overcrowding and Article 21 violations. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was enlarged on bail on a personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail dated 13.10.2022 was set aside, and the appellant Amit Kumar was enlarged on bail on a personal bond and two sureties.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9280 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

As per office report dated 02.02.2023, 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.1and 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 13.10.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No.95 of 2022, under Section 409, 420 IPC & Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Ganga Nagar, District- Meerut. .

¶9

There is allegation against the appellant that he got fraudulent loan sanctioned in favour of the informant, who was paid Rs.9,000/- and 11,000/- but loan of Rs.1,00,000/- stands against him. On coming to know about the same, he lodged the FIR. The appellant is stated to be main accused, who has got fraudulent loan sanctioned.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only to avoid the liability of repayment of loan. Loan is not sanctioned without formality of documentation, which was done by the informant. Co-accused, Sachin, has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.7408 of 2022. The appellant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 18.8.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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 above

¶13

consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 13.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let appellant, Amit 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

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafique Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munnilal Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Indresh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivshankar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another