Allowed

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2024/651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal seeking bail. Finding that witnesses were examined and the trial was delayed, the court set aside the rejection and granted bail to the appellant, Sunil Singh, subject to strict conditions including personal appearance and expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside bail rejected order set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions for personal appearance; trial directed to conclude expeditiously.

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8526

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Sunil Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in 3rd Bail Application No. 140 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2015, under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506, 374 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lalganh, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity. It is further submitted that the it is a cross case, in which, members of both the sides received injuries and two persons from the side of the complainant died later on due to injuries. It is also submitted that five persons from the side of appellant including the appellant also received injuries and their medico legal examination was also conducted at the behest of police ofÏcials. However, F.I.R. of the appellant's side was not lodged and thereafter under the order passed by the court below on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Case Crime No. 344 of 2015 was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 308, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. It is next submitted that the Investigating OfÏcer submitted final report on the basis of presumption that when the appellant and other accused persons were committing the crime of case in question, the other villagers rushed to the

¶9

spot and started pelting stones, in which, the accused persons received injuries. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries found on the body of the appellant and other accused persons do not support the story, as developed by the Investigating OfÏcer in the said case, as several injuries are incised wound, but there is no explanation.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has also been implicated in 8 other cases, one of which is related to the proceedings under Section 1(10)(g) Cr.P.C. and another is Section 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Control Act. In 3 cases, out of rest of the six cases, final report has been submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer and in 3 cases, the appellant is on bail. It is vehemently submitted that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 31.05.2015, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that twice final report was submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer in the F.I.R. lodged by the side of appellant, i.e., Case Crime No. 344 of 2015 (supra) and the same has already been accepted. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged before the revisional court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, appellant has chosen to file complaint before the Magistrate concerned, in which, summoning order was passed, which has been stayed by this Court.

¶12

However, they do not dispute the fact that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined. They also admit that the examination-in-chief has also been

¶13

concluded, but the cross-examination could not have been done as the appellant is not being produced from the jail before the trial court.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned order, post mortem report of the deceased persons, medico legal report of the appellant and other co-accused persons as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the appellant has also received injuries in the alleged incident along with other co-accused persons. It is also evident that all the witnesses of fact have already been examined.

¶15

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶16

Impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in 3rd Bail Application No. 140 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2015, under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506, 374 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lalganh, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let appellant, Sunil Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶18

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court

¶20

on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶23

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶24

District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh is directed to ensure the compliance of the directions of this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 30.1.2024 VKS

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Mitra Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Jamuna Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ranjeet Kumar Chauhan (Loniya) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bachai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Shiv Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jhabbar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another