Allowed

Sompal Lodhi Rajput v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023CRLA/10120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application in a caste-atrocity case involving murder charges was allowed. The High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting bail, citing lack of proper consideration and Article 21 grounds related to jail overcrowding, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Sompal Lodhi Rajput was released on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Sompal Lodhi Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223004

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10120 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sompal Lodhi Rajput Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan,Sarita Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶8

As per office report notice has been served personally on informant/opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶9

Heard Ms. Sarita Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Lines, District Rampur in Special Case No. 72 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.

¶11

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that accused Sompal who is the nephew of the appellant, was a driver. The deceased Poonam was also a driver of a vehicle. Both of them eloped with each other. On 05.03.2023 the wife of the informant went to the house of Sompal. The informant got a call from Sompal that his wife (deceased) was compelling him to marry with her in spite of his refusal. On 06.03.2023 the informant reached to the house of accused Sompal where his wife Poonam along with the present appellant and other named accused was present. The informant asked her wife to accompany with him but she refused. On 7.03.2023 the informant made a call to his wife but his mobile

¶12

number was found to be switched off. The informant reached at the house of the appellant and enquired about his wife and he was informed that his wife had left their house without informing anything. Later on, dead body of his wife was found under Panwaria bridge under police station Civil Lines, Rampur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that wife of the informant was entangled with the appellant while the appellant never intended to marry her. During the course of trial P.W.-2, informant stated that he never went to the house of the appellant on 06.03.2023 while it is the case of the prosecution that informant went to the house of the appellant on 06.03.2023 and his wife was also present there. There is no eye witness of the incident. Statement of two witnesses have been recorded during trial. Appellant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that as per the FSL report the piece of brick was recovered from the place of occurrence in which human blood was found.

¶15

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the trial court dated 16.06.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let appellant, Sompal Lodhi Rajput be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

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.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶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 the trial court.

¶23

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

¶24

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶26

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶27

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶28

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

Order Date :- 24.11.2023 PS

¶30

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sompal Lodhi Rajput v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sompal Lodhi Rajput 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

Smt Suvita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohsin Alam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surya Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another