Allowed

Praveen Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023CRLA/7335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting bail. The court found the impugned order suffered from infirmity and illegality, as the appellant demonstrated no likelihood of fleeing or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; impugned bail rejection order set-aside.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181861

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7335 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2/informant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anjani Kumar Tripathi holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, 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 appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No. 3932 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 366, 376 IPC & Section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Urwa Bazar, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. As per the allegation of first information report, appellant on the pretext of marriage established physical relation with the prosecutrix for the last two years. It is further submitted that admittedly the prosecutrix is major and was a consenting party. Prosecutrix accompanied with the appellant at her own accord and established physical relation with him on her own will. It is further submitted that prosecutrix herself refused to undergo for her internal and external examination. 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 10.06.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail

¶10

and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant 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 the appellant, namely, Praveen Kumar Prajapati 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is 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 :- 20.9.2023 AKT

¶22

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

Praveen Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Prajapati 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

Harshit Thakur @ Aniket Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tareeq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aasim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sudama Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Giri Vs State of U.P.and Another