Kanhaiya Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9712 of 2022 Appellant :- Kanhaiya Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Pandey,M.P.S. Chauhan,Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Rao,Raghvendra Yadav Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, 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

11.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 140 of 2022, under Sections 323, 325, 504 of IPC and Section 3(2) (V-a), 3(1) s of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. There is allegation against the appellant that he along with other co-accused Suraj Yadav had beaten up the informant with wooden stick. The informant was also addressed by caste related abuses. The incident took place on 6.2.2022. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No motive has been opined to appellant to be involved in such incident. No recovery of any wooden stick either on the pointing or out of possession is made from the appellant. It is submitted that it is a case of sudden fighting. It is also argued that offences are punishable up to the punishment of seven years. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2022, having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he 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 appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature but he could not point out any material to the contrary. 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. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 8.2.2023 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; 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 appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable heavy 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. 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. 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. 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 :- 20.11.2023 m.a. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad