Allowed

Rinku Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/9884/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal allowed. The Allahabad High Court set aside the rejection of bail by the Special Judge, citing parity with a co-accused, Article 21 violations regarding overcrowding, and the lower court's failure to consider the case properly. The appellant is released on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Rinku Yadav released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and witness tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118067

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9884 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Rinku Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Jain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

1.List has been revised.

¶7

2.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.

¶8

3.Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

4.The present criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 20.9.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 420 of 2021, under Sections 323,336,307,452,504,427 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad.

¶10

5.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the co-accused, Arvind Kumar alias Rivya Yadav has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1472 of 2022. The case of the appellant stands on identical footing, hence the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in criminal appeal of co-accused.It is further submitted that before the trial court P.W.1 has been examined, he has not supported the prosecution case. The appellant is languishing in jail since 4.4.2022.Appellant has criminal history of 16 cases, which has been explained in paragraph18 of the afÏdavit..

¶11

6.Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail,

¶12

but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶13

7.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 20.9.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

8.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 undertrial 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

9.Let appellant, Rinku Yadav 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) Appellant will report his presence before the police station Nagla District Firozabad in the first week of every month without fail till the conclusion of trial .

¶17

(ii)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.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) 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)

¶20

recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

10.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.

¶25

11.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.

¶26

12.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.

¶27

13.The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶28

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶29

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

Rinku Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Yadav 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another