Allahabad High Court
Liyakat And Another vs State Of U.P. Thr.Its Sec. Home ... on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8583 of 2022
Appellant :- Liyakat And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thr.Its Sec. Home U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Laloo Yadav,Kiran Rani
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
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 appellants to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by them in Case Crime No. 266 of 2022, under Sections 323,504, 506, 468, 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(Dh) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bachhraon District Amroha.
There is allegation against the appellants of causing offence of beating, threatening and hatching criminal conspiracy apart from committing offence of forgery against the appellants belonging to Schedule Caste.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is dispute between the parties regarding a land which the appellants claim as rasta while the informant disputes the same. Two civil suits have already been filed by the parties against each other and implications have also been made in other cases. He further submits that it is case of false implication. Dispute between parties is of civil nature. Appellants have 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 appellants and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
In view of above, the order of rejection of anticipatory bail passed by the court below dated 26.09.2022 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 appellants; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellants 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.
Anticipatory bail has wrongly been rejected by the court below without properly considering the material on record. It is case of no injury.
In the event of arrest, the appellants, Liyakat & Soman Khan, shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the appellants 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 appellants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The appellants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
5. In case, the appellants 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 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 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 their bail and proceed against them 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 appellants.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
SS
