Allowed

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2023CRLA/9281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the subordinate court's order rejecting bail. The appellant was granted bail under the SC/ST Act, with the trial court directed to expedite the conclusion of the trial, citing excessive jail overcrowding and procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering with witnesses and attendance.

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9281 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Rajiv Yadav @ Raju Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Pandey,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shadab Alam

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

As per ofÏce report dated 19.12.2022, 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.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 4.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgrah has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 484 of 2022, under Sections 302,504,34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

¶8

There is allegation in the First Information Report that deceased and appellant were playing PUBG. During the course of playing of game some dispute took place and it is alleged that one gun shot injury was caused tp the deceased and he died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant.In the confessional statement of the co-accused the role of causing firearm injury on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused, Guddu Sharma. It is a case of single fire. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The trial has commenced and P.W.1 has been examined but he has not assigned any specific role to the appellant.It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act.He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 15.10.2022. 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

¶11

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 consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 4.11.2022 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 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.

¶14

Let appellant, Rajiv Yadav @ Raju 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:

¶15

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) The appellant 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 28.4.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Yadav @ Raju 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

Rinku 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

Gullu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mool Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Urmila Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another