Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023CRLA/6429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal allowing bail to the appellant challenging the bail rejection order of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on lack of criminal history and partial factual dispute in prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail application set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6429 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Murti Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a copy of bail order dated 08.12.2022 relating to co-accused, Rinku, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 7433 of 2022, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Murti Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶7

Notice on respondent no. 2 has been sufficiently served.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by Special Judge, (S.C./S/.T. Act), Bulandshahr, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 4132 of 2022 (Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) moved on behalf of the appellant in Case Crime No. 263 of 2022 under Sections 368 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Jahangeerabad, District- Bulandshahr.

¶9

According to prosecution case, the informant/respondent no. 2 who is father of the victim, had lodged the first information report on 02.06.2022 alleging that on 12.04.2022 at 10 p.m., Praveen, Umesh and Rinku forcibly took away his daughter and since then she could not be recovered. In the additional statement of the informant recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.07.2022, he told the Investigating Officer that in search of his daughter, he visited the house of maternal father of co-accused, Praveen where he met the appellant, Ravi Kumar, who is son of Praveen's maternal uncle. Ravi Kumar told the informant that his daughter had attained majority and she had married Praveen and she will not return to his house.

¶10

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that :-

¶11

(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to extraneous consideration;

¶12

(ii) the appellant is not named in the first information report. His name was revealed in the additional statement of the informant recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 15.07.2022;

¶13

(iii) the victim in her statements recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that his father was drunkard and used to quarrel and beat her. Therefore, she willingly left her house on 12.04.2022 and went to Aligarh. She does not want to live in the informant's house;

¶14

(iv) co-accused, Rinku, has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7433 of 2022;

¶15

(iv) the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶17

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and that of the victim u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant and the fact that appellant has no criminal history to his credit but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the appellant, Ravi Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless his presence is exempted by the court.

¶21

(ii) That 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.

¶22

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶23

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶24

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶25

It is also 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/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 KS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi 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

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shweta Vs State of U.P.