Allowed

Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2023CRLA/6499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged the rejection of his bail application by a Special Judge in a case involving rape and use of caste-based language. The High Court held that the appellant made out a case for bail, set aside the lower court's order, and granted bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties after setting aside the order of bail rejection.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:151497

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6499 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. states that notice on the informant/opposite party no.2 is sufÏcient.

¶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 10.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Bail Application No. 945 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj.

¶9

As per FIR, the prosecution case is that on 22.02.2023 at around 2.30 pm, named persons, namely, Ankit Agnihotri, Vinay Kumar Verma, Yadunandan @ Raja Bhaiyya and one unnamed person called the prosecutrix, dragged her to the form house of co-accused Yadunandan @ Raja Bhaiyya, the unknown person committed rape with the prosecutrix. The co-accused Yadunandan @ Raja Bhaiyya used caste based words to the informant.

¶10

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. During her first statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. victim did not disclose the name of present appellant while in her additional statement she disclosed the name of appellant but when statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, she did not take the name of present appellant but stated one unknown person committed rape with her. The identity and presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence is doubtful. 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 25.04.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early 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 setaside.

¶14

Let appellant, Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam , 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 ofÏcer 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 :- 28.7.2023 Prajapati

¶22

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

Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelesh Kumar @ Shivam 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

Abhay Pandey @ Kariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishan Lal @ Setti Vs State of U.P.

Waseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinku Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Upasana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anushka Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others