Allowed

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLA/1330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal against bail rejection in a custodial rape case under the SC/ST Act. Relying on parity principles as appeals of co-accused were allowed, the Court set aside the order rejecting bail and granted release on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties with specific conditions of cooperation and presence in court.

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1330 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Veer Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in the Court itself, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file any counter affidavit and wants to address the Court on merits.

¶6

Office report dated 26.8.2021 indicates that notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally. Opposite party no.2 has neither engaged any counsel to represent her case nor has filed any counter affidavit so far. Thus, after taking aid and help of learned A.G.A., the Court proposes to decide this appeal on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to make necessary correction in the sections mentioned in the memo of appeal.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 10.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in Bail Application No.94 of 2021 (Manish Chaudhary and another vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime No.301 of 2018, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Purani Basti, DistrictBasti.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present F.I.R. was registered by the victim Neetu on 10.10.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 03.10.2018 against Sagar Chaudhary, Manish Chaudhary and Sabloo Chaudhary (the appellant). According to the certificate issued by the C.M.O., the age of the girl is 18 years. I have perused the statement of the victim girl recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has attributed the role of ravishing her upon the co-accused Sagar Chaudhary, whose criminal appeal

¶11

being Criminal Appeal No.2046 of 2019 has already been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order daed 14.5.2019. He further submitted that the appeal of co-accused Manish Chaudhary being Criminal Appeal No.2190 of 2021 was also allowed by order dated 6.8.2021. Contention is that the case of the appellant stands on better footing than that of aforesaid co-accused, as such, applying the principles of parity, his appeal too deserves to be allowed. The appellant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2021.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Let the appellant- Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶17

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN 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.

¶18

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN

¶19

CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT 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 IPC.

¶21

(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT 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 AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶22

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 10.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, is hereby set aside.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 M. Kumar

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo 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

Chandan @ Ankit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Singhal @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khilendra @ Boby Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashish Kumar Kanojia Vs State Of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and Another