Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023CRLA/1134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail, the High Court set aside the lower court's order. Granting bail due to overcrowding and lack of merit expression in the impugned order. Imposed six conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appellant was directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to six conditions regarding witness interference, court appearances, and conduct.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1134 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Renu Devi Dohre

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1; learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

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 05.01.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Civil Line, District Etawah.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR against appellant and also in the statement of the victim that the appellant befriended the victim and entered into physical relationship for last about two years and after false promise of marriage he has refused to marry the victim. Hence, FIR was lodged. Victim has alleged that she was married to someone about 15-16 years ago and thereafter she developed relationship with the appellant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication only to pressurize the appellant to enter into the marriage with the victim. The allegations made against the appellant under SC/ST Act are not correct. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 31.07.2021. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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 submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse

¶10

the liberty of bail.

¶11

In view of above, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 05.01.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; 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, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let appellant, Raj Kumar, 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 the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Abhishek

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Bramhanand Pal Vs State of U.P.

Kasif Vs State of U.P.

Patara @ Uday Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meera Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another