Allahabad High Court
Netrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155483 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6313 of 2023 Appellant :- Netrapal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5125 of 2023 Appellant :- Gajram Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5201 of 2023 Appellant :- Jasram Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Gopal,Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Aslam,Om Narayan Pandey Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Since all the criminal appeals are related to same set of facts and arising out of same case crime, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.
List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2 no one appears on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed 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 orders dated 28.04.2023 & 01.06.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by them in Case Crime No. 473 of 2006 under Sections 342, 304 IPC, and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused Shri Krishna Chaudhary, Rajendra Singh and Jaspreet Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 20.03.2023, 24.04.2023, 18.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.8569/2022, 9255/2022 1377/2023, copies of which are already annexed with this criminal appeal. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is submitted that no recovery on the pointing of the appellants is made out. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants are languishing in jail since 27.05.2023, 28.04.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellants are released on bail, they 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 but could not dispute the fact that aforesaid co-accused have been enlarged on 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 case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 28.04.2023 & 01.06.2023 are, 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; 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 appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let appellants Netrapal Singh, Gajram Singh, Jasram Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellants 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 appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The appellants 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 appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The appellants 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 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.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023 Mohit