In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150137 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2983 of 2024 Appellant :- Shivam Chaurasiya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gyanedra Pratap Singh,Ratnesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. 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 quash the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned Court below and release the appellant in Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur. 4. First Criminal Appeal was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of 2023. 5. It is submitted that during trial, statement of two witnesses P.W.- 1, Ravi Kumar Sonkar and P.W-2, Monu Sonkar have been recorded. P.W-2, Monu Sonkar, who was injured made allegations against the appellant. Since the statement of the injured has been recorded, there is no chance of tampering the witnesses. It is further submitted that appellant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2022. Criminal history of the appellant is explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit. In case, appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Let appellant, Shivam Chaurasiya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable and duly verified local and heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (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. (ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (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. (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. (v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date :- 13.9.2024 PS