Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging a rejection order, the Allahabad High Court held that the prosecution story was demolished by the victim who denied the rape charge and tainted her prior statements. Finding no corroboration and noting the trial was not likely to conclude soon, the Court dismissed the second bail application as set aside and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; order dated 23.12.2022 in 2nd Bail Application set aside.

Anshul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Anshul Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Brat Janardan,D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Shiv Sharan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

¶6

Vide order dated 05.01.2023, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and that too has been served upon him as per the office report dated 10.02.2023.

¶7

Case called out.

¶8

None is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶9

The Court is proceeding in the aforesaid circumstances.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow, arising out of Case Crime No. 592 of 2022, under Sections 328, 376, 406, 506, 342, 323, 377 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Vibhuti Khand, District - Lucknow and has further sought bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that though the appellant has never committed rape with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself has denied the fact with respect to rape committed by the appellant. He added that the prosecutrix as P.W.-1 has demolished the story of the prosecution. During the course of his argument, he has drawn attention towards page 33 which is the statement of the P.W.-1 i.e. the prosecutrix, wherein she has denied all the allegations which she has levelled in the first

¶13

information report and she also stated before the trial court that she never made any allegation in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and how the police has noted the same i.e. best known to the police. She has also denied her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and she stated that the same was given under the pressure of the police. Thus, he added that there is no fate of the trial and the present appellant is being harassed for his no fault. He next added that one of the co-accused Puneet has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No.2828 of 2022, vide order dated 12.01.2023 and he is seeking parity of the order aforesaid. He further added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the appellant and he is languishing in jail since 07.09.2022. He next added that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He submits that the appellant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there is serious allegation against the appellant and he was involved in committing the offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it reveals that the whole prosecution story has been demolished by the prosecutrix herself as she is the victim as well as the complainant; further this Court has noticed the fact that the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have also been declined by the prosecutrix and there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant so as to connect him in the instant matter; further the appellant has no previous criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 07.09.2022 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future.

¶16

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lucknow in 2nd Bail Application No. 11815 of 2022 is set aside .

¶17

Let the applicant-appellant, Anshul Mishra involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶18

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶19

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶20

The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶21

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 KR

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Mishra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Anr.

Mohd. Safi Alias Lallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy./Prin.Secy.(Home) Civil Sectt Lko and Another

Sadruddin @ Sadru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ram Newej @ Ram Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Yogesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ramesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another