Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2023CRLA/936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application under the SC/ST Act. The High Court held that the lower court failed to properly consider the appellant's submissions and noted jail overcrowding. Consequently, bail was granted subject to strict conditions including personal appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in equal amount.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99298

¶2

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 936 of 2022 Appellant :- Ramu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vikrant Pandey,Sarvjeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, 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 05.01.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 409 of 2020, under Sections 452, 307, 354-Kha, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur.

¶8

This is second criminal appeal of the appellant. The first criminal appeal was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 3.9.2021, which is not available. On 05.1.2022 the second bail application of appellant has been rejected by the court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that before the trial court, the informant, who is wife of the injured, has stated that she has not lodged the FIR and has not fully supported the prosecution case fully against the appellant. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.10.2020. Five prosecution witnesses have been examined before the court below. Since, the witnesses of fact have been examined, there is no possibility to tampering with witness. 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 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.

¶11

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

¶12

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 05.01.2022 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, Ramu, 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 officer 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 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

¶24

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 :- 9.5.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶27

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

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Vinay Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawase Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Swadesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dabloo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another