Allowed

Sonu Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2018CRLA/1879/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging the rejection of bail. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail subject to framing bond and specific conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 30.3.2018 rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant Sonu Rai was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Sonu Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1879 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sonu Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.M. Mishra,Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar holding brief of Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Raghvendra Prakash, counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent and perused the paper book.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed questioning the correctness of the order 30.3.2018 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Azamgarh in Case Crime no. 21/2018, u/s 376D IPC and 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kandharapur, District Azamgarh in Bail Application no. 583 of 2018 whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.

¶7

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that he is wholly innocent and has been falsely nominated in the present case. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim on the very next day of the incident u/s 354, 328 IPC and under the SC/ST Act. The prosecutrix in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has not levelled any allegation of rape neither against the appellant or co-accused Rahul. Lastly he submitted that co-accused Rahul has already been enlarged on bail and the case of the applicant stands exactly at par with that of co-accused Rahul, therefore, on the ground of parity the appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and supported the impugned order. However he could not point out anything material on the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 30.3.2018 is, hereby, set aside.

¶10

Let appellant, Sonu Rai be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(i). The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;

¶12

(ii). The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶13

(iii). In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.8.2018 Dhirendra/

Sonu Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Srikrishn @ Ramkrishn Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Swaroop Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Mestar @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.