Allowed

Aditya Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act against a bail rejection order, the High Court noted inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the premature bail of a co-accused. Considering the duration of detention and the need to expedite the trial under Article 21, the Court set aside the lower court's order and enlarged the appellant on bail with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The impugned bail rejection order is reversed and set aside. The appellant is enlarged on bail with special conditions to ensure attendance, cooperation, and non-interference wi

Aditya Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48115

¶3

Court No. - 15

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 260 of 2023 Appellant :- Aditya Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhola Singh Patel,Roshan Babu Gupta,Shushil Kr. Sharma,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rohan Babu Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Veer Bhan Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

¶7

This Court vide order dated 28.01.2023 while issuing notice to the opposite party No. 1 has already granted time to the learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit.

¶8

As per the office report dated 21.02.2023 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Even no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State till date. It appears that learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No. 2 are not interested to file any counter affidavit.

¶9

In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

¶10

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 140 of 2023 (Aditya vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2020, under Sections 354, 324 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District

¶11

¶12

Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and village party bandi. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecution.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per F.I.R., which was lodged by the prosecutrix that when she was returning from his work at about 6.30 p.m. to her house on the way near Jotpur Village two persons caught the hand of the prosecutrix and hold in their lap and taken away to garden and one person was also standing there, when she raised alarm they ran away.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. repeated the version of the F.I.R., but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has improved her version and has clearly stated that one of the three accused persons, namely, Ranjeet Yadav took her in the lap and the present appellant has closed the mouth of the victim and third person Neeraj Yadav was accompanying them.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the statement recorded under Section 164 was recorded under the pressure created by the police and the family members of the victim and role has been assigned, whereas the appellant was not present on the spot. His name was taken on account of enmity and village party bandi.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the coaccused against whom allegation of keeping the victim on his lap, namely, Ranjeet Yadav was already granted interim bail by a coordinate Bench of Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1897 of 2023: Ranjeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. vide order dated 19.06.2023. Copy of which is annexed as Supplementary Affidavit filed on 10.07.2023. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant’s role is only to close the mouth, whereas he was not present on the spot and his name was taken on the pressure created by the family members, even though name was taken in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. The victim has not stated

¶19

¶20

anything in the version of the F.I.R. or in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., thus the case is developed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that also falsify the entire prosecution story.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 16.01.2023, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 140 of 2023 (Aditya vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2020, under Sections 354, 324 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, deserves to be set aside and consequently, the accused/appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶23

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 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 16.01.2023 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶24

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. 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 accused/appellant.

¶25

¶26

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, unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that the victim has not stated anything in the version of the F.I.R. or in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has improved her version and has clearly stated that one of the three accused persons, namely, Ranjeet Yadav took her in the lap and the present appellant has closed the mouth of the victim and third person Neeraj Yadav was accompanying them, the co-accused against whom allegation of keeping the victim on his lap, namely, Ranjeet Yadav was already granted interim bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1897 of 2023: Ranjeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. vide order dated 19.06.2023, further considering the fact that appellant is in jail since 16.01.2023 and has now by done a substantial period of detention 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, both the impugned orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . Consequently, the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 140 of 2023 (Aditya vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 323 of 2020, under Sections 354, 324 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow is hereby reversed and set aside .

¶28

Let the appellant, Aditya Yadav, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2020, under Sections 354, 324 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (va) SC/ST, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, 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

¶32

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

¶33

(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

¶34

(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.

¶35

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

¶36

(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 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

The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, within a period of one year from today, 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.

¶41

Order Date :- 20.07.2023

¶42

Arvind

¶43

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

Aditya Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy., Govt. of U.P. 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

Ram Raheesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Nitin Alias Jatin Alias Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Deepak @ Desh Deepak Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Karthik Agarwal Thru. Father Mr. Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Malti Jaiswal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another