High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2814 of 2023 Appellant :- Vijay Bahadur Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Pooja Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bindu Kumari Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Pooja, learned counsel for the appellant; learned A.G.A for opposite party no.1; Sri Bindu Kumari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material placed on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 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 22.02.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Complaint Case No. 84 of 2018, under Sections- 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ac, Police Station- Chopan, District- Sonbhadra. The implication of the appellant has been made under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was implicated in complaint case. He attended the trial from 20.01.2009 to 12.08.2011, thereafter he used to make application for exempting his personal appearance. On 18.07.2016 non- bailable warrants were issued against him and he has surrendered in Court only on 03.02.2023. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant is poor person and he went in search of job and could not get leave from employer to come and attend the trial. He has submitted that he attended the trial from 2009 to 2011 but it was not concluded. In the supplementary affidavit filed today it has been stated that the marriage of the daughter of the appellant is to be solemnized on 04.05.2023 and her marriage card has been brought on record. His daughter is being married and he is required to perform the rituals for kanyadaan of his daughter. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 03.02.2023. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has 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. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 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 above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 22.02.2023 is, hereby, set aside. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, 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, Vijay Bahadur, 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: (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. 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. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law within period of six months 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 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. The criminal appeal is allowed. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week. Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad