Allowed

Jagdish Rajput v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2021CRLA/2877/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal arising from a Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The appellate court set aside the lower order due to a six-day FIR delay, finding it reversed any possibility of witness tampering, and granted the appellant bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of trial appearance and no tampering.

Jagdish Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2877 of 2021 Appellant :- Jagdish Rajput Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

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

¶5

As per report of concerned C.J.M., notice to respondent no. 2 has been personally served. But none is present on behalf of respondent no. 2.

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Jagdish Rajput with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 05.02.2021, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional District Judge, Lalitpur, arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 2020, under Section 354B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Pali, District Lalitpur.

¶7

The first information version is that the incident took place on 08.04.2020 at 07:00 P.M. and after six days, the first information report has been lodged with the allegation that the appellant in order to outrage the modesty of the informant assaulted her and she belongs to S.C. community.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that the first information report is delayed by six days and the allegations made against the appellant is only to the extent of Section 354 I.P.C. The appellant is innocent. The learned Special Judge without taking into consideration the material on record, without applying his judicial mind has passed the impugned order. The appellant is in

¶9

jail from January, 2021. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the the prayer and have submitted that the there is no illegality in the impugned order. Further submission is that the learned Special Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that there is delay of six days in lodging the first information report. The charge sheet has already been filed, hence, there is no possibility of appellant influencing the witnesses or influencing the investigation. Therefore, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.02.2021, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional District Judge, Lalitpur is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant namely Jagdish Rajput involved in aforesaid case be released on 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:-

¶14

(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2021 sailesh

Jagdish Rajput v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Rajput 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

Gourav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhimanyu Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chandrawati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar @ Manun Vs State of U.P.