Allowed

Manoj Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023CRLA/10677/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed to set aside an order rejecting bail under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections. The High Court found the trial court did not properly consider the appellant's case, citing fundamental rights to speedy trial and jail overcrowding. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was released on bail without a merits decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.10.2023 and 10.10.2023 setting aside; appellant Manoj Kumar Prajapati released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Manoj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:238077

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10677 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Dhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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 06.10.2023 & 10.10.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sant kabir Nagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 787 of 2023, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 406, of IPC, and Section 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V), 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act and amended/added Section 376(2)(n) & 341 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

There is allegation against the appellant in the FIR that he established physical relations with the informant on the pretext of marriage and usurp Rs.6,00,000/- from her. On 18.04.2023 when informant was going to take medical help at around 11.00 am appellant chased her and addressed her with caste related abuses and beaten up with kick and fist. The appellant threatened her to kidnap her children and also he would circulate her indecent video on social media. An application was given to police but no action was taken.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the victim during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that appellant came to her contact four years ago. They developed intimate relations. Thereafter, appellant taken her hotel and on several times on the pretext of marriage he established physical relations with her. It is submitted that no date and time is mentioned when appellant made contact with the

¶10

informant, where he established physical relations with her and through which mode he usurp Rs.6,00,000/- from informant. Even during her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she did not mention the date and time of the incident. There is no evidence that appellant had taken Rs.6,00,000/- from the informant. The victim refused to undergo for her medical examination, therefore, the allegations made in the FIR are not corroborated with any medical report. It is also submitted that no video was recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation either from appellant or from informant. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Appellant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and argued that vide Parcha No.9 of the case diary this fact is brought before the Court that on several dates from 08.04.2019 to 21.09.2021 the informant withdrew Rs.6,23,000/- and had given to appellant through cash. The appellant has also taken the jewellery of the informant and now he is neither returning the jewellery nor the money taken by him.

¶12

In rebuttal, it is submitted that there is no evidence on record which can demonstrate that appellant had ever received any money or jewellery from the informant.

¶13

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 06.10.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let appellant, Manoj Kumar Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶16

the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶27

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 Mohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Prajapati 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

Rehan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Roshani Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Jyoti Devi and Anothers Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others