Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023CRLA/5198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the lower court's order rejecting bail and granted bail to the appellant, Rajat Kumar, citing overcrowding in jails and fundamental rights under Article 21 without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case involving the SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Rajat Kumar released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regulating conduct, appearance in court, and prevention of tampering or intimidatio

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136082

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5198 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rajat Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no.2, no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

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

¶8

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 24.02.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Firozabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 529 of 2023, under Sections 366, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Khairgarh, District Firozabad.

¶9

As per the FIR the case of the prosecution is that the informant lodged FIR with the averment that her daughter was enticed away by appellant and other named persons on 22.12.2022 at around 5.00 am. Eye witnesses Chandrashekhar and Yogesh saw the appellant taking away the daughter of the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that after one month of disappearance victim was recovered and in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she made no allegation of enticing her by the appellant while she stated that she left her house at her own accord. The victim refused to undergo for her medical examination. It is further submitted that under the impression of her family members victim made allegation against the appellant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the victim and appellant got married and the marriage was registered before the competent authority. The certificate of registration of marriage is also placed on record. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the

¶11

provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. Applicant is languishing in jail since 27.01.2023 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 24.2.2023 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, Rajat 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:

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on 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 :- 11.7.2023 Mohit

¶27

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat 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

Sanjeev Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bade Munna Udainiya @ Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safeeq Kahan @ Chunnu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil @ Aneer Vs State of U.P. and Another