Allahabad High Court
Shafique vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10093 of 2022
Appellant :- Shafique
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ehtesham Akhtar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 order dated 5.12.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut has rejected anticipatory bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 06/2021 under Sections 354, 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station - Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.
There is allegation in the FIR that the appellant and four co-accused persons tried to drag the victim inside the car and also tried to crush her under the wheels of the car.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no such incident took place. It is a case of false implication of the appellant and other co-accused persons. The appellant was earlier enlarged on vide Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3081 of 2021 till the submission of police report. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted. The court below has rejected the anticipatory bail application on the ground that it is not maintainable. Learned counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 139 and argued after anticipatory bail application of appellant was maintainable before court below. Co-accused, Lukhman Chauhan, has been granted anticipatory bail vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8057. 2022 The appellant is being maliciously prosecuted in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit.
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.
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 anticipatory bail passed by the court below dated 05.12.2022 is, 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; 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.
In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The appellant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That 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;
4. The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the appellant.
5. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.
The criminal appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Abhishek
