Allowed

Ajay Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024CRLA/4789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal of an appellant convicted under the S.C./S.T. Act and IPC. Quashing the earlier rejection order, the Court released the appellant on bail after recording arguments and applying the Apex Court's principles on undertrial detention.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Ajay Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120769

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4789 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ajay Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satyam Chaurasiya,Utsav Counsel for Respondent :- Amar Nath Tiwari,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2021, under Sections 376, 452, 506 I.P.C., Section 3(2) (5) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Rewatipur, District Ghazipur. The first Criminal Appeal of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3095 of 2021.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, statement of P.W. 2 (father of victim) and P.W. 3 (mother of victim), have been recorded. There is no possibility of tempering with the witness of fact since witnesses of fact has been recorded. Applicant is languishing in jail since 5.6.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aspect made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶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

¶13

liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but 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

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶16

Let appellant, Ajay Sharma , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 SY

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Ramvilas Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkishor @ Kishore Taili vs State of Up and Another

Narendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Another vs State of Up and Another