Allowed

Geeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023/202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against bail rejection, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal. The court set aside the earlier order and granted bail to Geeta, citing parity with a co-accused already on bail and reliance on Dataram Singh. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including bonding and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside. The appellant, Geeta, is released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and complying with standard con

Geeta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55253

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 202 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Geeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Srivastava,Krishna Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶7

Case is taken up in the revise call.

¶8

Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State-opposite party No.1, is taken on record.

¶9

As per the office report dated 21.02.2023 notice has already been served upon the Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 but till date neither any counsel has appeared nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

¶10

Today when the case is taken up, there is no one present on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 neither any counter affidavit has been filed, as such, it appears that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are not interested in contesting this case. Since the matter pertains to bail and learned counsel for the appellant presses urgency in the matter, therefore, this Court has no other option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶12

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (ii) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow passed in Crime No. 113 of 2022 under Section 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gazipur, DistrictLucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. The accused/ appellant is innocent, who has

¶14

been falsely implicated in this case.

¶15

His further submission is that initially a first information report came to be lodged against two accused persons, namely, Baistava Rishu and present appellant, namely-Geeta only for the offence under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. However, upon conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid against the present appellant, namely-Geeta.

¶16

His next submission is that the first information report came to be lodged on the basis of suspicion only. The first informant, who is the brother of the victim, and the father of the victim also stated in their statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. that they believe that the present accused/ appellant has only helped the co-accused in enticing away the victim.

¶17

Learned counsel for the accused/ appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she knew the accused/ appellant. The victim has also stated that nothing wrong has happened with her.

¶18

His further submission is that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has reiterated that she had accompanied the appellant till the Railway Station with the coaccused and then she went to Jammu with the co-accused and they stayed there for few days. They came back to their village after came to know that the first information report has been lodged. His further submission is that there is no specific allegation against the appellant. His further submission is that the co-accused, namely-Siraj Alias Shajad has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1039 of 2023, the appellant may also be enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of parity.

¶19

His next submission is that having regard to aforesaid admitted fact, no offence under Sections 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) S.C./ S.T. Act is made out against the accused/ appellant.

¶20

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready

¶21

to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 09.09.2022 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow passed in Crime No. 113 of 2022 under Section 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District-Lucknow, deserves to be set aside and consequently, the accused/ appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶23

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that though the accused/ appellant is not named in the first information report, however, he has been charge sheeted. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the co-accused, namely-Siraj Alias Shajad has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1039 of 2023.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record. Initially a first information report came to be lodged against two accused persons, namely, Baistava Rishu and present appellant, namelyGeeta only for the offence under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. However, upon conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid against the present accused/ appellant as well as coaccused, namely-Siraj Alias Shajad.

¶25

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that there is no specific allegation against the accused/appellant and also taking note of the fact that she only helped the co-accused entice away with the victim other than this, there is no other allegation against the appellant. It is also relevant to note here that the co-accused, namely-Siraj Alias Shajad has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2023

¶26

passed in Criminal Appeal No.1039 of 2023, thus, the case of the present appellant is not on worse footing than that of coaccused, namely-Siraj Alias Shajad, who has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as mentioned above and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow passed in Crime No. 113 of 2022 under Section 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District-Lucknow is hereby set aside and reversed.

¶28

Let the appellant, Geeta be released on bail in the Crime No. 113 of 2022 under Section 363 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District-Lucknow with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The appellant shall furnish a personal bond with two sureties each of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶30

(ii) The appellant shall appear and strictly comply following terms of bond executed under section 437 sub section 3 of Chapter- 33 of Cr.P.C.:-

¶31

(a) The appellant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter.

¶32

(b) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and

¶33

(c) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

(iii) The appellant shall cooperate with investigation /trial.

¶35

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of

¶36

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.

¶37

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶38

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, in order to secure his presence, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶39

(vii) The appellant shall remain present, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶40

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

¶41

The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment.

¶42

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Piyush/-

¶43

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Geeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Ameen and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Pintu and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Avadhesh Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Manjeet Singh and 2 Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh and Another Vs State of U.P.