Allowed

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024/1027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an impugned bail order and released the appellant on bail. The Court held prima facie that a civil dispute – involving a property transfer and alleged money lending – had been given criminal color, and the trial would not conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to conditions.

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30165

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1027 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi,Nazmul Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghvendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the State annexing therewith F.S.L. Report in Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/victim/respondent no. 2.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 204 of 2024 C.I.S. No. 659 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Talgaon, District-Sitapur.

¶9

Impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 02.03.2024, learned counsel for the appellant stated that a perusal of FIR in connection with the appellant, who is having no criminal history and was apprehended and sent to jail on 10.02.2024, and the statement(s) of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. would indicate that the story set up by the victim/prosecution is completely false and concocted.

¶10

Elaborating the aforesaid, he further submitted that in the FIR the

¶11

allegation of committing crime/rape has been levelled against the appellant and the date of the alleged crime is indicated as 11.12.2023 and in the FIR, it has also been indicated that the appellant, after committing the crime also made a video clip and took photographs but despite all these allegations after due investigation charge-sheet was not filed under Information Technology Act and further, the chargesheet was filed only based upon the statements of the victim in a mechanical manner by the Investigating Officer.

¶12

In continuation, he further submitted that a conjoint reading of the statements of the victim and Annexure nos. 5 and 6 to the appeal (copy of the notary deed and FIR dated 24.09.2023, respectively) would indicate that the appellant was known to the victim and to a civil dispute, criminal color has been given for the reason that the mother of the victim in the presence of victim herself (witness of the deed) took Rs. 4 lacs to transfer the house situated at Village- Kala Bahadur, Pargana and Tehsil- Lahapur, District -Sitapur and in the statement, she alleged that Rs. 50,000 was provided to the appellant by the father of the victim as also that in fact, on being asked to vacate the premises indicated in Annexure No. 5 to the appeal, which was executed by mother of the victim of which the victim is a witness, the instant FIR against the appellant making allegations to attract the offense under Section 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act was lodged by the victim, who is a married lady aged about twenty four years.

¶13

He submitted to support the story of the prosecution as indicated in the FIR, there is no medical evidence.

¶14

At this stage taking note of the earlier order passed by this Court on being asked by learned AGA, he stated that F.S.L. report finds in the favour of the appellant.

¶15

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that taking note

¶16

of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact as indicated in the counter affidavit filed today that the victim has been blessed with a baby, it is apparent that no incident as alleged in FIR was occurred on 11.12.2023, as such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and accordingly, the appellant, who is in jail since 10.02.2024, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶17

Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State and Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/victim/respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶18

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also that the statements of the victim, this Court finds, prima facie, that to a civil dispute, criminal color has been given as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶20

Order dated 02.03.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 204 of 2024 C.I.S. No. 659 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Talgaon, District- Sitapur is hereby set aside.

¶21

Let appellant, Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini , be released

¶22

on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶28

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶29

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶30

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Gupta @ Shivam Yagya Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Bhagole and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Nisha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Pankaj Jaiswal vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Nishant Soni and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another