High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:121791 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3514 of 2023 Appellant :- Santosh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,V.N.Panday Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Additional cause list has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before this Court the notice given to Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for informant in writing and to Sri Anil Kumar Ojha, Advocate, by way of whatsapp message, but no one appears on behalf of the informant. Sri Anil Kumar Ojha, Advocate, has sent illness slip in another Criminal Appeal No.1826 of 2023, but there is no illness slip in this case. Hence this Court has no option but to hear the case on merits. 3. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 4. 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 24.2.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Session Trial No.280 of 2020, Case Crime No. 157 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 352, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s SC/ST Act, Police Station Turka Patti, District Kushinagar. 5. There are general allegations against eight accused persons including the appellant in the FIR regarding commission of offences of rioting, beating and threatening after entering into the house of the informant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the accused persons were enlarged on bail by the court below except the appellant because he has criminal history of two cases explained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. Implication of the appellant under Goondas Act was effective for six months and he was implicated under the aforesaid act on 6.8.2020. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 24.2.2023. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. 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. 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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 24.2.2023 is, hereby, set aside. 9. 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. 10. Let appellant, Santosh Yadav, 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. 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. 15. The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 16. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within 10 days. Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad