High Court
Case Details
1 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125699 Reserved On:- 29.05.2023 Delivered On:-08.06.2023 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2774 of 2023 Appellant :- Madan Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalta Prasad,Ram Bahadur,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram 2. Bahadur Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned AGA for State. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 402 of 2021, under Sections 186, 167, 217, 218, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 342, 166A IPC IPC and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station – George Town, District - Prayagraj. There is allegation in the FIR that the informant belongs to 4. scheduled caste and victim in case crime no. 1008/2019 under Section 376/323/504/506 IPC, section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Coronalganj, District- Prayagraj. Because the appellant is Assistant Professor in C.M.P. Degree College therefore on account of his post and influence, he has lodged number of cases against the informant and her witnesses, Gyan Chandra Maurya and Arun Kumar, to compell them to compromise in the aforesaid case. The appellant alongwith members of his gang has lodged Case Crime No. 94/2021, under Section 376/506 IPC at Police Station- Phoolpur, against her brother, Arun Kumar and witness, Gyan Chandra Maurya, wherein final report was submitted by the police thereafter, he lodged Case Crime No. 57/2021 under Section 147, 189, 506 2 IPC and Case Crime No. 119/2021, under Section 147, 323, 406, 506, 386 IPC at Police Station- George Town against her witness, Gyan Chandra Maurya and his family members. Her witness, Gyan Chandra Maurya, was abducted outside the court on 22.09.2021 by a person wearing police inform and his scooty was kept inside the Coronolganj, Police Station and it was got seized under Motor Vehicles Act and another case was lodged against the Gyan Chandra Maurya, under Section- 376D, 506 IPC being Case Crime 478/2021. Because of harassment by police, the informant is being compelled to commit suicide. The CDR details and the mobile phone of her witness, Gyan Chandra Maurya and CCTV, footage of the area where the incident took place with him may be recovered. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present FIR 5. has been lodged for falsely implicating the appellant and making out a defence in favour of the witness of the informant, Gyan Chandra Maurya, who got implicated in Case Crime No. 478/2021 stated above. He has submitted that the appellant has been implicated by the informant in number of cases. He was implicate by opposite party no. 2 in Case Crime No. 333/2021 and under Section 323, 504, 506, 307, 354, 376 IPC and Section – 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and has been granted bail by this court on 4.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 2790/2022. In Case Crime No. 1008/2019 lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the appellant under Section 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act. Appellant has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1475/2020 on 03.05.2023. He has submitted that in the present case co- accused. Shiv Kumar @ Kartar Singh Patel, has also been directed to be enlarged on bail for Criminal Appeal No. 1294/2022. He has submitted that the number of cases have also been lodged by the appellant against the opposite party no. 2 because of her misdeeds and offences committed by her against the appellant by way of counter-blast proceedings, he has been implicated in this case. He has no concerned with the Case Crime No. 478/2021 lodged against Gyan Chandra Maurya. In this case two police personnels have been falsely implicated by her. The victim wanted to marry the appellant, when they were students, but on account of difference of caste, their marriage could not took place. Thereafter, the victim has got married to one, Om Prakash, resident of village, Bantariya, Police Station- Saidpur, District- Ghazipur, but because the appellant has got job of Assistant Professor in a degree college, she is harassing him. It is a case of malicious prosecution of appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. 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 submitted that the bail application by filing a counter-affidavit wherein the allegations made in the FIR against 3 the appellant has been reaffirmed and repeated the details of the cases lodged by the appellant against the victim have also given in the affidavit. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that there are number of cases pending between the parties and there is possibility of falsely implication of the appellant in this case. 8. 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 14.10.2022 is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 9. 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, Madan Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case 10. 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. (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 4 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. 15. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year. 16. Registrar(Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court below within ten days. Order Date :-08.06.2023 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad