Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Third Bail Application No.627 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.09 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34 & 302 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police StationMunshiganj, District- Amethi.

¶14

While pressing the present bail appeal of appellant who is in jail for a period of more than 7 years, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the prayer for bail sought in Criminal Appeal No.1310 of 2018 (Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan Vs. State of U.P. & Another) was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2019.

¶15

It is further stated that second bail application with the prayer to release the appellant on bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1370 of 2021 (Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan Vs. State of U.P. & Another).

¶16

It is further stated that while dismissing the bail appeal vide order dated 26.09.2022, this Court directed the trial court to make every endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either party to say within a period of one year from today.

¶17

CRLA No. 1907 of 2024

¶18

2

¶19

Further submission is that the trial is at the stage of recording of statement(s) of accused in terms of Section 351 B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 313 Cr.P.C.).

¶20

It is further stated that thus the trial is now at the stage of adducing the defence evidence and if the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is released on bail then in that eventuality the appellant would be in a position to properly assist his counsel to defend himself at this stage of trial.

¶21

It is also stated that delay in conclusion of trial is also one of the grounds for enlarging the accused on bail and the instant appeal for bail has been filed on the ground that despite the order of this Court thereby directing the trial Court concerned to make every endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest, the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial and the appellant is languishing in jail for the last more than 7 years.

¶22

In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation , passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020) , as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-

¶23

"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 Representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India, 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, 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."

¶24

In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶25

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶26

CRLA No. 1907 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

It is further submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2018. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant including with regard to period of incarceration, i.e. more than 7 years as also that on bail the appellant would be in better position to assist his counsel to defend himself.

¶30

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶31

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments, referred above, including the fact that the appellant is in jail since 25.01.2018, i.e. more than seven years and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case and also that on bail the appellant would be in better position to assist his counsel to defend himself, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶32

Order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Third Bail Application No.627 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.09 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34 & 302 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Munshiganj, District- Amethi is hereby set aside.

¶33

Let the appellant- Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶34

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶35

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶36

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶37

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶38

CRLA No. 1907 of 2024

¶39

4

¶40

(v) 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.

¶41

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

¶42

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶43

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶44

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶45

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶46

September 24, 2025

¶47

Anand/-

¶48

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶49

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Srivastava @ Chandan v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Pravesh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others