Allowed

Mohd. Hayat v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2023CRLA/9836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appellant seeking bail in a rape and SC/ST atrocity case. Finding the lower court's order arbitrary due to one-sided investigation, jail overcrowding, and uncertainty of trial conclusion, the court set aside the rejection and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; the appellant Mohd. Hayat is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and adhering to specific conditions includ

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9836 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Mohd. Hayat Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Imran Mabood Khan,Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶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 28.11.2022, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 311 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Linkroad, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

There is allegation against the appellant of committing offence of rape against the women belonging to the schedule caste.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the statement of the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that she has consenting relations with appellant since July 2020. She had gone with appellant to different hotels.The victim is clearly major and consenting party.The allegation that appellant promised to marry her but has not married is irrelevant.The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.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 18.11.2022. 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 very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is

¶11

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 28.11.2022 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, Mohd. Hayat 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 :- 5.5.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶26

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

Mohd. Hayat v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hayat 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abdul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nikit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Abid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another