Allowed

Vikas v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021CRLA/1887/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the criminal appeal against the bail rejection order, holding that the substantial delay and inconsistencies in the FIR, coupled with the appellant's SC status, rendered the lower court's order erroneous. Bail was granted subject to bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.11.2020 rejecting bail is set aside and appellant is granted bail on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1887 of 2021 Appellant :- Vikas Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour,Asha Parihar,Geeta Parihar,Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶5

Heard Ms. Asha Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Vikas with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 25.11.2020, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 780 of 2020, under Sections 364A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

¶7

Aggrieved by the bail rejection order, this appeal has been filed.

¶8

The first information report version is that on the date of incident at about 06:00 P.M., when the informant and her sister were looking after their field, two four wheelers came there. The accused persons started beating both the sisters and have been kidnapped on the point of country made pistol. Any how, the informant reached the police station with her sister. The police left them to their house where she found her mother Shakuntala Devi missing. The first information report was lodged in which two persons were named along with some other persons who were not named.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the appellant in which caste certificate of the appellant has been annexed in which it has been mentioned that the appellant belongs to SC category. On this bass, it has been argued that the provisions of SC/ST Act will not be applicable against the appellant.

¶10

Further submission is that the first information report version itself is suspicious and despite the fact that two sisters have taken away but they were soon released and they themselves reached to the police station and no first information report has been lodged by them. Submission is that the first information

¶11

report was lodged after the delay of 15 days from the date of incident and it shows that the first information report is after thought and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission is that nothing has been said, what was the reason for the accused-appellant to kidnap both the sisters. In the tune of the first information report, the informant has given statement to the I.O., whereas, Shakuntala Devi has given entirely a different case that she was told that accused persons have kidnapped her daughters and on that statement, they got click her photograph and take her thumb impression and have said that if the land will not be given, the kidnapped daughters will be killed. Forcefully her thumb impression was taken. It has been further submitted that on the basis of that thumb impression a fake will deed was inscribed in which it was provided that Shakuntala Devi will be given her whole property to the accused persons. Submission is that the will deed is not valid if Shakuntala Devi is alive and once it has been denied by Shakuntala Devi, the said will deed looses its significance. It has been further submitted that the a false case has been prepared and the police has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has filed a counter affidavit and it has submitted that after kidnapping Shakuntala Devi, they have advanced threatening that her two daughters will be also kidnapped, forcefully thumb impression was taken and a forged will deed was inscribed in order to grab the property of Shakuntala Devi. Therefore, the learned court below have taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and has rightly rejected the bail application.

¶13

It is clear that the first information report is delayed by 13 days for which no good reason has been shown. So many facts have been mixed up from the side of informant which give rise to the suspicion with regards to the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offence. The appellant belongs to the SC category and as such, the application of SC/ST Act will not possible against him. The appellant is in jail from the last about nine months, as such, the learned court below has committed error in rejecting the bail application. There is apparent illegality in the bail order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5 of 2020 is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant namely Vikas involved in Case Crime No.

¶16

780 of 2020, under Sections 364A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun is granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶18

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 sailesh

Vikas v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Another

Mohammad Sameer Khan Vs State of U.P.

Gayatri Dubey and 2 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Lodhi Vs State of U.P. and Another