Allahabad High Court
Prithviraj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2023
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 24.04.2023
Delivered On:- 02.05.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9862 of 2022
Appellant :- Prithviraj Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suhel Ahmad Azmi
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Suhel Ahmad Azmi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. 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 30.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Deedarganj, District- Azamgarh.
3. There is allegation in the first information report initially lodged under Section 302/386 IPC, that the father of the informant was working on the post of Headmaster in an educational institution. The appellant, who is media person, was regularly threatening his father regarding the mis-management of the institution and he had made photographs and video in this regard viral on social media. He was also threatening his father to get him dismissed from service. The father of the informant used to inform the informant about the conduct of the appellant. On 06.042022 at about 4 p.m the father of the informant left his house but he did not return upto 8 p.m. Thereafter his search was made and his dead body was recovered 300 metres away. It appeared that was murdered.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of malicious prosecution of the appellant by a person of scheduled caste. There is no evidence regarding blackmailing of the deceased by the appellant. No video or photograph allegedly made viral by the appellant has been recovered by the investigating officer. The deceased committed suicide because of the reasons best known to him and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Subsequently the investigating officer submitted charge sheet under section 306 IPC and section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act only. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. The appellant is in jail since 07.11.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the appeal.
6. This Court after hearing the rival submissions has gone through the case diary of the case produced by learned A.G.A before the court. This Court finds that the investigating officer has collected oral evidence of number of witnesses but has not been able to lay his hands on any video or photograph made viral by the appellant regarding the work and conduct of the deceased as Headmaster of the institution. All the oral statements of the witnesses are only to the effect that the appellant used to threated the deceased of making photographs and video of his educational institution viral for getting him dismissed from service. None of the witnesses have stated that they have seen any photograph or the video of the deceased made viral by the appellant.
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 above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 30.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.
8. 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.
9. Let appellant, Prithviraj Singh, 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 her 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 one year 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 :- 02.05.2023 Rohit