Ravindra Kumar @ Babloo And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28516 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198124
 
Court No. - 85
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9396 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Ravindra Kumar @ Babloo And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balbir Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 order dated 30.06.2023 whereby the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur has rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellants arising out of case crime no. 318 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 325, 308 of IPC, and under Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saraikhowaja, District Jaunpur.

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged in the F.I.R that on 10.03.2020 at around 4:30 p.m., on account of some dispute with the childrens, the applicant along with other co-accused persons had bitten the informant and other persons, in which, they sustained injuries.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that the other named persons, whose name surfaced during the investigation are granted bail by this Court. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., the informant did not make any allegation about addressing with caste related word. It is next submitted that there is a cross version since NCR No.75 of 2020 was lodged from the side of the informant. It is further submitted that three persons sustained injuries in this case. It is next submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter. It is further submitted that except Bakelal, all the injured, namely, Arvind Sonkar, Umang and Rohit Sonkar, they all sustained simple injuries. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants and no recovery of wooden sticks from either side of the appellants or from the possession of the appellants are found. It is further submitted that appellants are 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 vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants and submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable since rejection order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur not by the Special Judge. It is also submitted that Bakelal sustained serious injuries. It is next submitted that in the report of CT Scan of Bakelal, comminuted fracture is noted involving right frontal bone and both walls of frontal sinus with fractured fragments in the sinus cavity. It is also submitted that bailable warrants were also issued against the appellants. However, he could not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and in the F.I.R. itself, no allegations of addressing caste related word is mentioned by the informant. It is next submitted that the fact that there is cross version has also not disputed from the side of the appellants that three persons had received injuries in this case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. The impugned rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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 appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let appellants, Ravindra Kumar @ Babloo, Ajay, Shiv Kumar & Ashok be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 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 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 they 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 appellants are 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 appellants, 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 :- 13.10.2023

Shivangi