Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2021CRLA/2206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging a bail refusal, the High Court granted bail to the appellant after noting that the parties had settled. Despite concerns about caste-based intimidation, the court allowed bail subject to conditions and quashed the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Release of appellant on personal bond and two sureties; quashment of impugned order refusing bail; imposition of strict attendance and undertaking conditions.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2206 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Appellant :- Beenu Singh,Prashant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sharda Prasad Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

Heard Sri K.B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh in Case Crime No. 257 of 2020, u/s 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468 IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gabhana, District Aligarh.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the parties have come to terms and this fact has been mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further contended that both the parties have sorted out their differences and disputes and this fact has been confirmed by learned counsel for the complainant and he submits that he has got no grievance in the event the applicant is released on bail.

¶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 that the parties have come to terms and totality of circumstances and the submissions of the 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.

¶12

Let the appellant Rajendra Singh, 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:-

¶13

(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

¶14

TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C. 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. concerned 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 stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh is hereby quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.8.2021 Nisha

¶23

Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.08.18 12:45:28 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ashish Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat AND3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Singh Nirwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prashant Trivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Naushad Vs State of U.P. and Another