Allowed

Mohit Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024CRLA/4127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act, the Court set aside the lower court's order and granted bail on the grounds of parity and overcrowding, imposing standard conditions and explicitly reserving legal opinions on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail on 09.04.2024 is set aside; appellant Mohit Upadhyay is released on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

Mohit Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108244

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4127 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mohit Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

As per office report, service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is sufficient.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶8

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

¶9

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 09.04.2024 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Sections 366, 376D of IPC, and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station South, District Firozabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that co-accused Sunny Upadhyay has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.12377 of 2023. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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. However, he does not dispute the fact that the

¶12

similarly placed co-accused has been granted bail by this Court.

¶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 above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 09.04.2024 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; 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 appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let appellant, Mohit Upadhyay 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) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶23

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 :- 4.7.2024 Mohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Upadhyay 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

Keshav Kohar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devanand Yadav @ Tuntun vs State of Up and Another

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

Aman Singh vs State of Up and Another

Rahul Kumar vs State of Up and Another