Allowed

Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLA/2916/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed for setting aside the bail rejection order. The court held that contradictions in the victim's statement and the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR prima facie made out a case for bail. The appeal was allowed, bail granted subject to conditions, and the impugned order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on personal bond and two sureties; impugned order rejecting bail set aside.

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2916 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Rajesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 29.6..2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime no.454 of 2020, under Sections 366, 368, 376 (D) IPC and section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police StationGhatampur, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the bail application no. 1015 of 2021 of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

Contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not named in the FIR. The victim in her statement recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement before doctor has given three different selfcontradictory shades of the story which have eroded confidence of the prosecution case considerably. She is aged about 20 years. The victim in her statement before doctor has venily attempted to drag the appellant in this heinous offence though the appellant is not named even in the FIR. This is unfortunate when a person is purposely dragged in commission of the offence in most casual way. It is reflective of the mental mechanism of the victim, who either tutored or for some other reasons at every stage chancing her stand. The appellant is languishing in jail since 21.5.2021.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode in which the appellant has been summoned and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

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

¶12

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶13

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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.

¶14

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

(v) 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

¶17

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 HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. The impugned order dated 29.6..2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime no.454 of 2020, under Sections 366, 368, 376 (D) IPC and section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ghatampur, District-Kanpur Nagar is hereby set aside.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 AU

Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mudhir Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Charan Chaudhary @ Shabloo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samsher and Others Vs State of Up

Pankaj Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another