Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9959 of 2022

Appellant :- Prince Yadav And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Sugendra Kumar Yadav,Anand Prakash Srivastava,Vindeshwari Prasad

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Alok Singh

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Shri Vindeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants;

Shri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2

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 appellants to set aside the impugned order dated

21.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST(P.A.) Act, Deoria

has rejected the bail application of the appellants moved by them

in Case Crime No. 148 of 2022, under Sections 307,323,504

IPC and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station

Bhaluwani, District Deoria.

There is allegation against the appellants of making attempt on

life,beating and threatening the persons belonging to schedule

caste.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are

three injuries suffered by the injured and only one fracture was

found on frontal bone involving right frontal sinus.It is not clear

who out of three persons implicated is author of the aforesaid

injuries. The First Information Report is delayed by three days. The

appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.It is a case of

malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. They

have no criminal history to their credits and are languishing in jail

since 10.10.2022. In case, the appellants are released on bail,

they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite

party no.2 have 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. 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.

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

bail passed by the court below dated 21.11.2022 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.

Let appellants, Prince Yadav and Lalbabu 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 him 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) openin