Criminal appeal against rejection of bail under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Relying on delay in trial and the appellant's prolonged incarceration, the court granted bail subject to conditions including monthly appearance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153708
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4851 of 2024
Appellant :- Devanand Yadav @ Tuntun Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Singh,Surendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
for her examination. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. There is a criminal history of one case to the credit of the appellant, which has been duly explained. The appellant is languishing in jail since 9.3.2019. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial.
"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."
(1). The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The appellant will not influence any witness.
(3). The appellant will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(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.
(5) The appellant shall ensure his attendance before the trial Court on every first working day of the month failing which, the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed for cancellation of bail of the appellant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.9.2024 RKK/-
Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, in custody since 9.3.2019 with a stalled trial, should be enlarged on bail despite earlier rejection of his bail appeals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebRelied on¶7
(2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Devanand Yadav @ Tuntun
State of U.P.
Another
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
