Allowed

Shivnandan Lodhi v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024CRLA/10403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order rejecting bail. Considering the delay in trial, jail overcrowding, and the Trial Court's failure to properly consider the appellant's case, the Court enlarged the appellant on bail subject to standard conditions. The judgment specifically addresses applicability under the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, pressuring witnesses, and presence in Court.

Shivnandan Lodhi vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174898

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10403 of 2024 Appellant :- Shivnandan Lodhi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunit Kumar,Yatish Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

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 17.8.2024 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 72 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Muskara, District Hamirpur.

¶7

This is second criminal appeal of the appellant. The first criminal appeal of the appellant was rejected by this Court on 01.5.2023 directing the trial court to conclude the trial against the appellant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that before the trial court, eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. He had no previous criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 7.5.2022. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations levelled are very serious in nature. 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.

¶10

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 17.8.2024 is, hereby, set aside.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Let appellant, Shivnandan Lodhi, 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:

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Ruchi Agrahari

¶25

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

Shivnandan Lodhi v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnandan Lodhi v. State of Up and Another

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

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Raghav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Smt Rachna and Another vs State of Up

Awadhesh Karan @ Lala vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another