Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118778 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 329 of 2023 Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
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 9.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 347 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 386, 504, 506, 427, 120-B, 354 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad.
5. There is allegation in the FIR that on 24.6.2022 at about 6:00 p.m. when the victim had gone out of her house to ease herself, co-accused, Sonu, talked obscenely with the victim and used to caste related words against her. She informed her husband and then her husband and other family members went to make complaint to the house of co-accused, Sonu, who turned them out alleging that they are trying to defame their son, Sonu. Thereafter, Sonu came to know of the incident and then on 8.7.2022 at about 8:55 p.m. in conspiracy with other co-accused persons including the appellant armed with illegal arms came to the house of the informant and started breaking doors by hurling caste related abuses and threatened that enmity with him will cost you dearly. They fired from illegal arms with intention to kill and broke window panes and made firing on walls. When the informant opened the door, they outraged her modesty and tore her clothes. The sign of finger nails, bites appeared on her body. On her alarm, persons of locality collected. Thereafter accused persons left the scene of incident threatening that in case Rs.5 lacs is not paid to them within a week as extortion money, they will kill her family members. The aforesaid incident was recorded in CCTV footage and number 112 was dialed. Police informed that action shall be taken against accused persons in the morning. The empty cartridges were recovered from the scene of incident in the morning. Accused persons are criminals and number of cases of loot, murder and gang rape are registered against them.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had no motive to commit the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case alongwith main accused, Sonu, for ulterior motives. He never used any caste related abuses or threaten informant. He has criminal history of nine cases explained in rejoinder affidavit. 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 is languishing in jail since 21.9.2022. 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 appellant has long criminal history and therefore he does not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7A. After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that no injury was caused to any one in the incident. The allegations are only oral in nature. Motive of committing the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant.
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 9.11.2022 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, Rahul, 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.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Ruchi Agrahari