Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021CRLA/563/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. It set aside the impugned order and granted bail, finding apparent illegality in the lower court's decision because the alleged injury caused by the victim to the accused was absent from the medical report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 563 of 2019 Appellant :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anurag Sharma

¶2

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

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

¶4

None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶5

This appeal has been filed by appellant Anil Kumar against the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-IInd/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut passed in Bail Application No.6155 of 2018(State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 514 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mawana, District-Meerut, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶6

The FIR version is that the incident took place on 21.08.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 22.08.2018 with the allegation that the mother of the informant was coming from local fair, near the tempo accused caught her and dragged her by closing her mouth and tried to commit rape on her. The victim in order to safe her cut down the penis of the accused and aggrieved by the same he tried to kill her by throttling but on the noise of the victim, many people came to the spot and save his mother whereupon appellant abusing her and threatening her ran away from the fair.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There was some hot-talk between the informant and appellant while they were coming from fair and because of this quarrel he has been falsely implicated. There is no independent witness, the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons. Without considering this fact, learned Special Judge has rejected the bail application, which is not sustainable under law. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed by

¶9

the police against the appellant. It has been further submitted that the learned Special Judge has after taking into consideration the evidence on record has passed legally valid order by which the bail application has been rejected, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Considered the submissions of both the sides, the appellant is in jail since 23.08.2018. The case is of attempted rape. The injury which has been alleged in the FIR which was caused by the victim to the accused does not find mention his medical report. As such, I find apparent illegality in the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by learned Additional Session JudgeIInd/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut, is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant Anil Kumar be released on bail in Bail Application No. 6155 of 2018(State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 514 of 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mawana, District-Meerut on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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 applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Mini

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Mubarak Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdhul Mateen Vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Singh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Vs State of U.P.

Dharmu Kumar Bind @ Dharmu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhanshu Srivastava Vs State of U.P.