Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8853 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8710 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was kept pending on account of his implication in Case Crime No.376 of 2013 and ultimately the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case on 31.05.2016. The acquittal order, however, records that bail bonds would remain operative in terms of section 437A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is for this reason alone that petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of petitioner's claim is wholly arbitrary.

Perusal of the judgment and order rendered by the sessions court in Session Trial No.1215 of 2014 would clearly go to show that prosecution has not been able to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The bail bonds, however, have been kept alive in view of the requirement contained under section 437A Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

"437A. Bail to require accused to appear before next appellate Court -

(1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.

(2) If such accused fails to appear, the bond stand forfeited and the procedure under section 446 shall apply."

The object of bail bonds to subsist despite acquittal is to ensure that accused is available in the event appeal is preferred in the matter. This provision cannot be a ground to deny consideration to petitioner's claim if his candidature is otherwise admissible in terms of the policy for grant of compassionate appointment. Order impugned passed by the Superintendent Engineer dated 05.10.2017, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 05.10.2017 is quashed. Respondent no.3 is directed to accord consideration to petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in light of the above observations, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

Ashok Kr.