Allowed

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLA/3813/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged bail rejection in an SC/ST case involving allegations of assault and blackmail. Court, noting medical evidence contradicted assault claims and victim turned hostile, granted bail on conditions and quashed impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted bail on personal bond and two sureties; condition to not seek adjournments or default carelessly; impugned order quashed.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3813 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State the annexure no. 1 indicates that the notice was served upon opposite party no. 2 wayback on 14.06.2019 and till date she has neither engage any counsel nor filed any counter affidavit. With the help and aid of the learned AGA, the Court is persuaded to decide the present appeal.

¶7

By means of the appeal u/s 14 (A)(2) SC/ST Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IInd, Firozabad in Case Crime No. 391 of 2018, u/s 354, 341, 376, 504, 506, 507 IPC and under section 67 Information Technology Act & section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad.

¶8

The learned counsel for the appellant attracting the attention of the Court to the FIR lodge by the none other than the victim herself on 03.08.2018 under sections 354, 341, 376, 504, 506, 507 IPC and under section 67 Information Technology Act & section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, against the sole named accused Jitendra Yadav. From the FIR it is clear that the victim is a teacher in local public school and she has make an allegation that the appellant has chased her and she further alleges that the appellant used to follow and chase her and besides this, he has taken her vulgar snaps and started blackmailing her. From the FIR it is borne out that allegation of sexual assault was fasten against the appellant. It is further contended that in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she has changed the allegation mentioned in the FIR but the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court that she is a major girl having date of birth as per high school certificate is 13.01.1995. The medical opinion of the girl has completely blasted the prosecution case to score that there is not a single scratch over her person nor any injury over her private organ. Before the doctor she has given a statement that an attempt was made to ravish her.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail by making a mention that there are some signs and material with regard to blackmail the victim 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 moreover the injured himself has turned hostile and submissions of the learned counsel for the

¶12

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 Jitendra Kumar, 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.

¶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

¶20

smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶21

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. Firozabad 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 stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IInd, Firozabad is hereby quashed.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Nisha

Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar 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

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.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another