Allowed

Raju @ Shahnawaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024CRLA/8280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act by an accused in a kidnapping and rape case. The victim's deposition showed she accompanied the accused voluntarily; statement already recorded. Citing speedy-trial principles and Article 21, court enlarged the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to stated conditions including no witness tampering and presence before trial court.

Raju @ Shahnawaj vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168821

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8280 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Raju @ Shahnawaj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶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 with the prayer to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 559 of 2021, under Sections 366, 376, 342 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad.

¶9

First Criminal Appeal of the appellant bearing number 10958 of 2023 has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023.

¶10

There is an allegation against the appellant that on 31.10.2021, daughter of the informant was enticed away by the appellant.

¶11

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of the victim has been recorded before the trial Court. The victim during her deposition before the trial Court admitted that she accompanied with the appellant at her own accord and establish physical relations on her own sweet will. At the time of occurrence, the victim was around 19 years and was major. The appellant did not established physical relations forcefully with her. It is also submitted that since the statement of the victim has been recorded, therefore, there is no chance of tempering the witnesses. The appellant is languishing in jail since 08.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal

¶12

of the case.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute that the statement of the victim has been recorded.

¶14

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

¶15

"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."

¶16

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. The impugned rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let appellant, Raju @ Shahnawaj 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:

¶19

(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 PS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju @ Shahnawaj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Shahnawaj 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devanand Yadav @ Tuntun vs State of Up and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumaer vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Kumar Alias Leelu Tomar vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Idrish Shah Alias Lallan vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. and Another