Allowed

Dilip Kumaer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CRLA/8250/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act in a case under Sections 307, 504 IPC and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Court noted general allegations, single injury, and overcrowding in jails, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164438

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8250 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Dilip Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijan Rathore

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter and rejoinder affidavit filed today, are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present second criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed to release the applicant/appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 583 of 2017, under Sections 307, 504 I.P.C. and 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act registered at P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya during the pendency of the trial. The first criminal appeal of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 14.5.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant. Injured during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned general role to Sandeep, Naveen, Gautam and present appellant. It is further submitted that medical report discloses that injured sustained only one injury. It is further submitted that since the injured assigned general role to all the accused persons, therefore, it cannot be said that who is the author of the injury. As per x-ray, CT Scan and NCCT report of the injured Dhirendra Kumar, no abnormality was detected. It is further submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered either on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 29.7.2024 and criminal history of the appellant has been explained in paragraph-25 of the bail application. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that appellant was actively involved in the commission of crime but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶11

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 appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let appellant, Dilip Kumar 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:

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 SY

¶25

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

Dilip Kumaer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumaer 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tahir @ Gantha vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Patel vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr Arjun Singh vs State of Up and Another

Ashok Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandra Sujata vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar vs State of Up 3 Others