Allowed

Rohit Dhankar Jaat v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024CRLA/3240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The court held that the trial court failed to consider the appellant's case properly, leading to a delay in concluding the trial, and granted bail citing the right to a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond along with two reliable sureties, each amount to be decided by the court concerned.

Rohit Dhankar Jaat vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146620 Reserved on 04.09.2024 Delivered on 09.09.2024

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3240 of 2024 Appellant :- Rohit Dhankar Jaat Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶3

Counsel for Appellant :- Atharva Dixit,Kartikey Singh,Pranav Tiwary Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Daga,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit and Sri Kartikey Singh, learned counsels for the appellant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the 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 24.01.2024, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mathura has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 252 of 2022, under Sections 201, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nauhjheel, District Mathura.

¶7

This is second criminal appeal of the appellant. Earlier Criminal Misc. Bail no. 6603 of 2022 was dismissed by this court on 02.05.2023 directing the trial court to conclude the trial against the appellant expeditiously preferably within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that copy of the earlier bail rejection order was filed before the trial court on 06.07.2023. Thereafter charges were framed against the appellant on 10.07.2023 and the statement of seven prosecution witnesses have been recorded. The statement of PW-7, Nilesh Mishra, Circle Officer, Avla, Bareilly, has been brought on record by the appellant and it has been submitted that in his cross-examination he has stated that the informant implicated the appellant on the basis of suspicion. The date and time when the appellant stated the uttered caste related abuses to the deceased was not mentioned. He has further submitted that Piyush Sharma, who is witness of fact mentioned in the first information report has not been examined as

¶9

prosecution witness and formal witnesses are now being examined. He has submitted that it is a case of suicide and not a murder. The appellant is in jail since 2.07.2022 and has no previous criminal antecedent. The deceased and the appellant were of the same age. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. They have submitted that Piyush Sharma, still be produced as witness before the trial court and there is no rule that if the statement of formal witnesses starts the witness of fact cannot be produced in evidence. He has submitted that their witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. The murder of the deceased was caused because envy by the appellant.

¶11

After rival contentions of the parties, this court finds that the witnesses of fact have already been examined. As yet the prosecution has not made any application to produce Piyush Sharma in evidence. This is first implication of the appellant and he is already in Jail since 02.07.2022. The trial Court has not been able to conclude the trial within period provided by this court.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 24.01.2024 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

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.

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

Let appellant, Rohit Dhankar Jaat, 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:

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 09.09.2024 SS

¶28

3 of 3

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit Dhankar Jaat v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Dhankar Jaat 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Suman vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hira Lal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Bhatnagar vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Saleem vs State of Up and Another