Second bail appeal in a case under IPC Sections 506, 366, 376, 342 and SC/ST Act after prosecution witnesses turned hostile; court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.
Appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
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:115952
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 522 of 2024
Appellant :- Jasveer Singh Alias Bachcha Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abrar Ahmad,Dheeraj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
An affidavit of compliance regarding service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is also filed. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.
Present criminal appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.1.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Criminal Bail Application No.7549 of 2023: Case Crime No.244 of 2022 under Sections 506, 366,376, 342 of IPC and 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989), Police Station Holagarh, District Prayagraj. It has further been prayed to release the appellant on bail during pendency of trial in the said case.
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 20.9.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.7679 of 2023.
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-Kanya Devi (PW-1mother of the victim), victim (PW-2) and witness-Ram Chandra (PW-3) have been examined. They did not corroborate the version of the prosecution and were declared hostile to the prosecution. Since the statements of the star witnesses have been recorded, there is no possibility of tempering the evidence. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 12.2.2023, 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.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"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."
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 .
Let appellant, Jasveer Singh alias Bachcha Singh 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:
(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.
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.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024-RKK/-
Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, whose first bail appeal was dismissed and against whom key witnesses turned hostile at trial, should be released on bail pending trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebRelied on
(2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jasveer Singh Alias Bachcha Singh
State Of Up
Others
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
