Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023CRLA/4850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Bench set aside an order rejecting bail filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The court held that the lower court failed to consider the appellant's case and did not address 5-6 times jail overcrowding, violating Article 21. Bail was granted on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Aniket Kumar to be released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139639

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4850 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Aniket Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 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 28.03.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kiratpur has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 90 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 406 IPC, and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was having love affair with the appellant since last three years and prior to the lodging of the FIR they wanted to marry with each other. Later on, appellant refused to marry and on 06.02.2023 on the pretext of marriage he established physical relations forcibly with the prosecutrix.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the proseuctrix and appellant has performed their marriage with each other. The prosecutrix filed a complaint case no.126 of 2023 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court no.2, Nagina, Bijnor against her brother and father in which she stated that she had married with present appellant. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in which she also admitted that she had married with appellant at her own accord. Thereafter she lodged a false report against appellant. The victim is major and she was the consenting party. No adverse finding was recorded about the rape during her medical examination. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is

¶10

released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court below has not properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 28.03.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let appellant, Aniket 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:

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶20

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Mohit

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruvchandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bantu Vs State of Up Thro Principal Secretary Home Gov of Up

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaswant Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu Alias Umesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another