Allowed

Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2023/808/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail appeal, setting aside the Special Judge's rejection order. The court considered the solemnized marriage, the wife's pregnancy, her lack of interest in pursuing the case, the appellant's clean record, and the delay in trial, ruling the lower court failed to appreciate material facts.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order rejecting bail is set aside and reversed; the appellant is released on bail with specific conditions.

Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48454

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 808 of 2023 Appellant :- Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

¶7

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.150/2023, CIS No.564 of 2023, Case Crime No.25/2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parties are consenting parties and have solemnized the marriage in a temple in District Mathura. This averment also finds place at clause 2 of the compromise filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit as well as in para 9 of the short counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2. They are living as husband and wife and now the wife is pregnant from 04 months. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

history and he is in jail since 25.01.2023 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that his client is not interested to pursue the matter any more as she has married with the appellant, as such, this bail application may be considered sympathetically. Learned A.G.A. for the State is also in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶13

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 the parties have solemnized their marriage and are living as husband and wife and the wife is pregnant from four months and now she is not interested to pursue the case 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 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (Supra), 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No.150/2023, CIS No.564 of 2023, Case Crime No.25/2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur is hereby set aside and reversed.

¶15

Let the appellant, Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai be released on bail in the Case Crime No.25/2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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.:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(viii) 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.

¶27

Order Date :- 24.7.2023 Saurabh

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra @ Raj Bajpai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Chaudhary @ Vikki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Pankaj Rajpoot Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Balram Godiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Another

Suman Verma @ Suman Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another