Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023CRLA/7071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. It held that the appellant was falsely implicated and met bail criteria, setting aside the lower court's rejection order and releasing him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The bail rejection order dated 05.07.2023 was set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194182

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7071 of 2023 Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Singh,Ambikesh Kumar Sharma,Harish Kumar Yadav,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gambhir Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

No one appears for the informant/opposite party no.2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Moradabad in Bail Application No. 2598 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2023, under Sections 120B, 363, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) Da, 3 (1) Dha, 3 (2) 5 Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. As per allegation of F.I.R., the daughter of the informant enticed away by the appellant alongwith other named accused persons. Victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made no allegation against the appellant and stated that her age to be 20 years. It is further submitted that victim herself joined the company of the appellant and performed marriage with him at her own accord. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she reiterated her previous version. As per the report of learned C.J.M., Moradabad, her radiological age is 17 years. In this respect, the law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. The appellant does not have any criminal history to his credit. 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

¶9

20.06.2023 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the appellant, namely, Rahul Kumar 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.

¶14

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 9.10.2023/AKT

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Bharat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shekhar Alias Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alkesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja and Another Vs State of U.P.