Allowed

Soran v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021CRLA/4355/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail. The court held that the appellant made out a case for bail due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and the lack of reliable medical or ocular reports, and ordered his release on personal bonds and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22.6.2021 rejecting bail is set aside; appellant to be released on bail subject to personal bonds and two sureties.

Soran Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4355 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Soran Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice on respondent no.2, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.6.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura, in Bail Application No. 1896 of 2021 (Soran Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2021, under Sections - 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Police Station - Govardhan, District - Mathura, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 20.5.2021, the appellant is in confinement since then; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; the appellant has no criminal history; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. On prima facie basis, only for the purpose of grant of bail, learned counsel for the appellant submits, completely false accusation has been made against the applicant. The victim girl is stated to be a person with hearing and speech impairment.

¶9

There is neither her statement recorded during investigation nor there is any medical report to establish the allegation of rape. As to ocular evidence, it has been submitted, it is wholly unreliable. There is inconsistency with respect to the place of occurrence. Also, no alarm was raised by the near and dear ones of the alleged victim, who are claimed to have seen the occurrence.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned here in this appeal.

¶12

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶13

Thus, in view of the above noted facts and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.6.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Soran involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.12.2021 Prakhar

Soran v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soran 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

Raj Kiran @ Neeraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.and Another