Allowed

Pravez v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2021CRLA/1969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the appellant in an appeal filed under the SC/ST Act challenging an order of conviction and sentencing. The court observed prima facie that the appellant faced significant issues as a co-accused but distinguished his role from the main accused. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and adjudicated a new bail order before the trial c

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 1969 of 2021 allowed; Impugned order dated 01.04.2021 by Special Judge, Meerut quashed; Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1969 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Pravez Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naseer Ahmad,Birendra Singh Khokher,Sadaful Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate( Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Satyendra Nath Tiwari, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The office report shows that notice was issued on 19.05.2021 and the C.J.M., Meerut has given his report on 21.07.2021 that notice was served to the brother of the deceased but till date neither any counsel was engaged nor any counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. As a last resort, taking the help of the learned A.G.A., the Court is proposing to decide the appeal on merits.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Case Crime No. 46 of 2021, u/s 306, 506 IPC and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Brahmanpuri, District Meerut.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered by Sri Vrindawan on 16.02.2021, u/s 376, 306, 506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act against Hamsab, parents of Hamsab and Parvez, the present appellant with the allegation that Hamsab on the false promise of marrying with the victim, established physical relationship with her and not only this, he has taken some obscene videos of the incident. Resultantly, she has become pregnant and thereafter, he has declined to marry with her. Out of sheer frustration, the girl has committed suicide on 15.02.2021 around 10 in the night. It is was also revealed that when the complaint was made by the informant, the parent of Hamsab used to extend threats. From the FIR it is clear that the main accused is Hamsab, who has committed the offence and the role attributed to the appellant is for extending threat. It is further submitted that the case of the present appellant is clearly distinguishable from the case of main accused, Hamsab. The informant in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 16.02.2021 stated that the appellant used to committed marpeet with the victim, on which, an FIR having case crime no. 26 of 2021, u/s 354, 323 IPC was lodged by the victim against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown the bail order of the aforesaid case.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶10

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

¶11

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and the submissions of the

¶12

learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the appellant Pravez, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-

¶14

(i) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C.

¶19

community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶20

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. Meerut who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.

¶21

With the observation the present criminal appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed by Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut is hereby quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Nisha

¶23

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.09.27 15:21:11 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pravez v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravez 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

Ajay Chauhan @ Ajay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bishamber Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kirshan @ Krishanpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kripal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kusum Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Up