Allowed

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLA/2661/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court considered a bail application under the SC/ST Act. Noting the victim's shifting stance and the appeal's prima facie merits, the court quashed the impugned bail rejection order and allowed bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellant on personal bond and two sureties; impugned bail rejection order dated 08.09.2020 quashed.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2661 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Ram Dubey,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hanuman Deen Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Ram Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, 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 08.09.2020 passed by Ananya Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti in Case Crime No. 119 of 2020, u/s 376, 504 IPC and section 3(2)(V), 3(1)(D) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rudhauli, District Basi.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it is culled out from the FIR that the appellant is betraying the confidence of the vicim on the pretext that he would marry with her and she was sexually exploited for four good years and now the appellant has wriggled out from his promise. It is further contended that the age of the girl is 18-21 years as per the radiological report. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra to buttress his contention. Sri Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 acceded the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the statement of the victim is recorded as P.W. 1 in which she too has blasted the prosecution case and states that out side the Court it was settled that after the release of appellant, they would get married.

¶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 shifting stands by the victim in which she too has declined to support the prosecution case and 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 Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two

¶13

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.

¶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. Basti

¶21

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.

¶22

With the observation the present appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 passed by Ananya Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Basti is hereby quashed.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Nisha

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarika Rai Vs State of U.P.

Israrul Haque Khan Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another