Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021CRLA/481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the order rejecting the bail application of the appellant, who was charged with rape under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held that the appellant made out a case for bail despite the serious allegations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; accused released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 481 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Janardan Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Rai,Viveka Nand Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in Bail Application No.05 of 2020 rejecting the bail application arising out of Case Crime No.200 of 2019 under Sections 376, 506 IPC. and Sections 3(1) (dha) and 3(2)V of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Deogaon, District- Azamgarh.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report it was on 08th October, 2019 at around 09:00 pm that when the informant was all alone at home , the named accused asked her to visit his house where sweets and cloths will be given to her by his mother and his sister and on this assurance she accompanied the appellant and when she reached the appellant's house neither the appellant's mother nor, his sister was present and she was taken to the roof where the appellant committed rape upon her .

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as victim is major aged about 28 years and there was love affair going on between the parties. It has been further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after six days of the alleged incident. It has been further stated that there is no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. It has been further submitted that the appellant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 18.10.2019. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

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 herein this appeal.

¶11

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.

¶12

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of

¶13

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 10.01.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Pradeep Kumar Maurya @ Pintu Maurya involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶16

The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Sanjeev

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Maurya Alias Pintu Maurya v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Santosh Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another