Allowed

jUGAL Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/3955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal for bail, noting he had languished in jail since June 2023 and the victim had been declared hostile, citing prolonged incarceration under Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

jUGAL Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116020

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3955 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Jugal Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Singh,Ram Kumar Dubey,Satendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Akash Kumar,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present criminal appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj in Case Crime No.242 of 2023 under Sections 376 (2)n, 506 IPC and 3 (2) V SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj. It has further been prayed to release the appellant on bail during pendency of trial in the said case.

¶8

This is the second criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant. His first criminal appeal was dismissed on merit by this Court, vide order dated 1.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11021 of 2023.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that subsequent to the dismissal of first criminal appeal of the appellant, informant-victim (PW-1) has been examined and declared hostile. It is next argued that the victim is a married lady, aged about 32 years. Since the statement of star witness has been recorded, there is no possibility of tempering the evidence. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2023, having no criminal history. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶12

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but

¶13

also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed .

¶15

Let appellant, Jugal Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(1). The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶17

(2). The appellant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(3). The appellant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 RKK/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

jUGAL Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

jUGAL Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati 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

Ramkumar @ Ramu vs State of Up and Another

Ramkumar @ Ramu vs State of Up and Another

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another

Ikram Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasveer Singh Alias Bachcha Singh vs State of Up Others