High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved On:-25.04.2023 Delivered On:-05.05.2023 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2295 of 2022 Appellant :- Akhilesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant;Sri Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State, perused the material placed on record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled 2. Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh, in Bail Application No. 485 of 2022, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 196 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Tarwa, District- Azamgarh. 3. There is allegation in the FIR lodged against unknown accused regarding murder of father and mother of the informant by sharp edged weapons in the night of 28.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. The implication of the appellant and ten other accused persons have been made on the basis of the information received from the informer. In CD No. 12 dated 11.12.2021, the appellants have been implicated on the basis of their confessional statements before the police and joint recovery of chapad and iron rod has been shown. He has submitted that the appellant is aged about 22 years. No one has seen on the incident. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. No motive of crime has been assigned to the appellant. Co-accused, Jyoti, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application No. 19360 of 2022. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.12.2021. In case, the appellant released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 2 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. They further submitted that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. After hearing the rival submissions this Court finds that vide order 6. dated 21.03.2023, the counsel for informant has granted to bring on record any CDR or other documents proving the implication of the appellant in this case. Nothing has been brought on record. This Court finds that except the confessional statement and the joint recovery of weapons on the joint pointing out of the accused. There is nothing against the appellant in this case. 7. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of the above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 22.02.2022 is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 8. finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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. Let appellant, Akhilesh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid 9. 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: (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. 3 (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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground 10. 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. 11. 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. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited 12. 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. 13. The criminal appeal is allowed. Order Date:05.05.2023 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad