Allowed

Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2018CRLA/2428/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court set aside the order rejecting bail, holding the appeal had substance and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Bail was granted with personal bond and sureties under various conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions of presence at court and undertaking against seeking adjournments.

Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2428 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Durga Tiwari,Amar Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant, Saiyad Iqbal Ahmad, counsel for respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the StateRespondent 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 19.3.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.)Act/ Uppar Session Judge, court no. 2, Moradabad in Case Crime no. 312 of 2017, u/s 376, 504, 506, 313 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad whereby his prayer for bail has been rejected.

¶7

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the victim had instituted a complaint against the appellant alleging commission of rape with her on the pretext of marrying her. In the said complaint, statement of the victim was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and several dates were fixed for recording statement of the witnesses, however, the respondent no. 2 did not adduce any evidence and ultimately the learned Magistrate by order dated 4.10.2017 dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. while recording a finding that the victim is a major girl and she has established physical relation with the accused of her free will and consent and prima facie there is no evidence to make out any offence of rape. Learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent no. 2 suppressing the fact of dismissal of complaint made an application before the SSP, Bijnor making similar such allegation as contained in the complaint, on which by the order of the SSP, the F.I.R. was registered. Learned counsel has argued that prima facie it is a case of consensual physical relation between the applicant and the prosecutrix and subsequently due to certain reasons as marriage could not take place the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the applicant.

¶8

Per contra learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the prosecutrix has been sexually exploited by the applicant on the pretext of marriage. However, he could not deny the aforesaid submission about dismissal of the complaint and that the prosecutrix is aged about 29 years.

¶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 19.3.2018 is, hereby, set aside.

¶10

Let appellant, Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja 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 :- 28.8.2018 Dhirendra/

Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar Tripathi @ Raja 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

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Parmar Vs State of U.P.

Faeem @ Acche Babu Vs State of U.P.

Doodhnath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hari Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.