Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023CRLA/5933/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court analyzed a bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. Considering the appellant's alleged false implication, lack of FIR naming, and lack of witness corroboration, the court held that bail grounds were made out and allowed the appeal against the bail rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions prohibiting tampering and intimidation.

Anil @ Aneer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136701

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5933 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Anil @ Aneer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jayant Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in Bail Application No. 1076 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2018, under Sections 376-D, 354, 506/34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Syohara, District Bijnor.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant is not named in the first information report. For the first time, his name was surfaced in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix stated that mistekenly she lodged the first information report against Mohit while the present appellant was involved in the present incident. It is further submitted that co-accused Arjun has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3051 of 2018. It is further submitted that during the course of trial the prosecutrix did not corroborate the prosecution version and specifically stated that co-accused Arjun and the present appellant did not commit rape with her and further they did not address any caste related words to her. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early

¶10

disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶14

Let appellant, Anil @ Aneer , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.7.2023 Prajapati

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil @ Aneer 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

Rajat Kumar 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