Allowed

Satendra Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024CRLA/4841/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an order refusing bail. Finding the lower court erred in rejecting bail without proper consideration, the court enlarged the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act based on Article 21 and jail overcrowding, subject to specific conditions, while declining to pass opinion on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and absconding.

Satendra Yadav vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:112823

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4841 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Satendra Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶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 16.04.2024 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 26 of 2023, under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the informant has stated during her testimony that the FIR was lodged by her since she was called to the office by Circle Officer. It is further submitted that suicide note is not identified by the witnesses. It is also submitted that witnesses of fact has been examined. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 3.1.2023 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 and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary.

¶12

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

¶13

"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 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

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 16.04.2024 is, hereby, set aside.

¶15

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.

¶16

Let appellant, Satendra Yadav 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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶28

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Mohit

¶29

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

Satendra Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Yadav 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Thakur vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Gupta and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ayman Khatoon vs State of Up and Another

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